Hi -
I concur with Brian. I've seen no rationale for singling out these four
documents from the raft of other obsolete specifications.
Randy
On 2024-12-17 12:34 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Hi,
All of these RFCs have been obsoleted, most of them a long time ago.
There is no requirement to reclassify them in the standards process.
Anyone who checks them in the RFC index or in the corresponding
information pages such as https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793 will
immediately be informed that they have been osboleted by, e.g., RFC
9293. Anyone who just looks at the text of the RFCs will be none the wiser.
In my opinion there is no need to reclassify them, or any other formally
obsoleted standards track document, as historic. If we reclassified
these four documents, without doing the same for every other obsoleted
standards track document, we would simply create four singularities,
which would lead to confusion.
It would of course be quite easy to write a program to list all
obsoleted standards track documents and propose to reclassify them all
as Historic, but why bother? Well, since I already had a program I could
easily modify to do so, I can tell you that there are 663 Standards
Track RFCs that have been obsoleted, and 51 BCP RFCs that have been
obsoleted. (Full list attached.)
I note that the status-change document doesn't explain why this is worth
doing for these four documents in particular. I think it is an
unjustified waste of time and effort that will cause confusion.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 18-Dec-24 05:22, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make
the
following status changes:
- RFC793 from Internet Standard to Historic
(Transmission Control Protocol)
- RFC1065 from Internet Standard to Historic
(Structure and identification of management information for TCP/
IP-based
internets)
- RFC1723 from Internet Standard to Historic
(RIP Version 2 - Carrying Additional Information)
- RFC1725 from Internet Standard to Historic
(Post Office Protocol - Version 3)
The supporting document for this request can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-793-1065-1723-1725-to-
historic/
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2025-01-14. Exceptionally,
comments may
be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
The affected documents can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc793/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1065/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1723/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1725/
IESG discussion of this request can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-793-1065-1723-1725-to-
historic/ballot/
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list -- ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-announce-leave@xxxxxxxx
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
