Hello all,
While I fully agree with what this document proposes. This might be an
editorial comment but I 've noticed that RFC 1072 is not mentioned to be
made Historic despite the option specified by it is made obsolete. What
is more, referencing all the documents made obsolete normatively is OK?
Here I suggest only RFC 4614 to be mentioned in this way.
However I'd like to raise some questions not directly connected to this
document. I wonder why those who said a few weeks ago that
historicizing some documents in the similar situation is not appropriate
do not object now. The arguments of these folks were that RFC 2026 sets
the criteria for Historic status as 'replaced by other doc' and did not
consider 'being deprecated' (what exactly we have in the current case)
as weighty reason for historicizing document.
Moreover, there are no clear procedures for moving documents to
Historic. So everybody who wants to propose to move some RFC to
Historic must think out what procedures should be used or find them out
in the most recent documents.
Up to this day there are neither any clear definition of Historic RFC
status nor procedures for historicizing RFCs. Should this continue?
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
02.02.2011 23:51, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the TCP Maintenance and Minor
Extensions WG (tcpm) to consider the following document:
- 'Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110,
RFC1145, RFC1146, RFC1263, RFC1379, RFC1644 and RFC1693 to Historic
Status'
<draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00.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 2011-02-16. 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://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf