Hi, I find the title irritating. I had to go open the draft to know what it was obsoleting. Reading the abstract, I find that the draft proposes declaring RFC2731 Historic (not Obsolete) So the title is actually misleading. But wait. According to the heading, if approved, this draft will obsolete RFC2731. Which are we doing Historic, or Obsolete? (can you do both simultaneously?) In actuality, what this draft is doing is transferring responsibility for further development of the "Encoding Dublin Core Metadata in HTML" to Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. Neither RFC2731 nor this draft make it clear whether RFC2731 was a snapshot of work that was done by the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative and simply published as an Informational draft to inform the IETF, or whether RFC2731 was contributed to the IETF with the intent of developing an IETF standard (and subsequently failed). There is almost no discussion of why RFC2731 is being declared obsolete/Historic and why further development has moved to the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. I had occasion to coordinate the transfer of responsibility from the IETF to IEEE for some work, and had to spend significant effort working through the copyright issues and the migration issues (RFC4663). The work being transferred in RFC4663 is an IETF standard, whereas RFC2731 is only Informational, so that could make a lot of difference, but there is simply no discussion at all of copyright issues and migration issues. And the reasons why RFC2731 is not still considered valid (just an earlier version), or why this step to declare the RFC Historic is being done are extremely light. Is it to prevent it being used because this old version and the updated work cannot coexist? or do we just not like this one any more? Is it because the effort to standardize failed? (Did the Initiative want to keep editorial control, and when they found out they couldn't if it was standard, they took their ball and went home? Is this draft to provide a pointer to the Initiative because providing this pointer in an RFC sort of implies that IETF endorses the Initiative as the SDO for setting a standard(?) for this metadata? (I notice there are Editorial notes to remove some text; are all mentions of the Initiative being removed? I couldn't tell the scope of the Editorial note. It might be better to see an updated version that has been cleaned up, so there are no misunderstandings about what should be in the published RFC.) RFC2731 contains perl code. They are published with this text that appears to be a license: "They may be taken and freely adapted for local organizational needs, research proposals, venture capital bids, etc." If RFC2731 is obsoleted, does this in any way affect the license and the legal rights of implementers of RFC2731? This is not discussed. I find this draft not very satisfying because it simply ignores so much. In security considerations sections, it is acceptable to say "hey, we considered this and reached the conclusion that authentication and authorization and other security features are not needed." It is not considered acceptable to simply omit any discussion of the security considerations. I don't want new boilerplates, but there are a bunch of issues related to this document that are simply not discussed. I think this document should include (very small) sections that reflect that copyright issues have been considered; that authors rights in RFC2731 have been considered; that migration issues for implementers of RFC2731 have been considered; that licensing issues for the contained code have been considered. None of this has been documented, so a reader cannot know whether these have been considered and not documented, or simply overlooked. I do not think this document is ready for publication as an RFC. David Harrington dbharrington@xxxxxxxxxxx ietfdbh@xxxxxxxxxxx dharrington@xxxxxxxxxx > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-announce-bounces@xxxxxxxx > [mailto:ietf-announce-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of The IESG > Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:31 AM > To: IETF-Announce > Subject: Last Call: draft-reschke-rfc2731bis (RFC 2731 is > Obsolete) toInformational RFC > > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter > to consider > the following document: > > - 'RFC 2731 is Obsolete ' > <draft-reschke-rfc2731bis-02.txt> as an Informational RFC > > 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 > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2009-10-07. 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 file can be obtained via > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-reschke-rfc2731bis-02.txt > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=vie w_id&dTag=18624&rfc_flag=0 > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf