Re: Last Call: <draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00.txt> (Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110, RFC1145, RFC1146, RFC1263, RFC1379, RFC1644 and RFC1693 to Historic Status) to Informational RFC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]