24.03.2011 17:42, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
As far as I can tell, your proposal does not match the meaning we use
for Historic.
More importantly, there does not seem to be a problem that needs to be
addressed in this area.
Most importantly, if there is a problem, it should in my opinion be
addressed separately from the topic of this draft. Please do not
conflate the two.
While it is not directly related to the draft's topic, it it just an
attempt since this draft is very likely to become published unlike the
separate proposal on this topic.
Mykyta
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
On 3/24/2011 11:32 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
Russ, all,
Another proposal as for your document. So, it fails to mention what are
the procedures for reclassification of Standards Track RFCs to Historic.
Therefore, I propose the following text:
6. Procedures for Reclassification of Standards Track RFCs as Historic
Documents
Under some circumstances Standards Track RFCs may be reclassified to
Historic document (i. e. its initial status may be changed to
Historic). RFC 2026 [1], as well as its predecessors, contains some
words about the Historic RFCs, but it failes to define the procedures
for reclassification of RFCs to Historic status. Such situation, of
course, causes misunderstandings of the members of the community. This
document removes this uncertainty; it defines the circumstances under
what the Standards Track RFC should be moved to Historic status and
describes the procedures for such action.
The Standards Track RFC, either Proposed Standard or Internet
Standard, should be considered to be appropriate for reclassification
as Historic document if (a) there is another document that replaces it
or (b) it described the protocol or other technology that got
out-of-use.
In the case mentioned as (a) above the superseding document should
just have the notice of the necessity of reclassification of its
predecessor to Historic. However such action is not obligatory.
In the case mentioned as (b) above the procedure is as follows. If the
individual or a group of individuals (e. g. IETF working group) assume
that the protocol or other technology defined in the Standards Track
RFC is now out-of-use and is very unlikely to become widely used in
the future, they SHALL apply to IESG to request the reclassification
of such document to Historic. IESG SHALL then issue the IETF-wide Last
Call on this action, not shorter than 2 weeks, in order to determine
whether there is the community consensus on reclassification. If Last
Call did not reveal community objection to this action, this document
SHALL be reclassified to Historic.
During the sunset period, set by this document, Draft Standards SHALL
be reclassified to Historic using the procedure as defined above.
... and renumber the following sections.
What do you think about this proposal?
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
14.03.2011 1:32, Russ Housley wrote:
There have been conflicting suggestions about the best way forward. We
have constructed an updated proposal. It has been posted as
draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-04.
Russ
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf