On Jun 2, 2011 4:05 PM, "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> While the IESG is considering this, I would encourage you to
> also consider the model used to make a specification that is
> simply and obviously obsolete (and in A/S terms "not
> recommended") Historic without having to have an I-D written and
> processed into RFC via the same process used to create Standards
> Track documents. In the cases in which we want to move a
> specification to Historic because it is a bad idea, having an
> RFC to explain why it was a bad idea seems appropriate. But for
> the "no one cares about it any more" cases, it seems like a
> lighter-weight procedure, such as a Last Call on the question
> "does anyone believe that our impression that no one cares is
> incorrect?" might be in order (and much closer to the procedure
> that was used when (and before) 2026 was adopted.
Agree, but producing such a "no one cares anymore" RFC and getting it through the process should be lightweight enough already. It should slide right through. I hope we don't need yet another special process because our normal process is too heavy.
Scott
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf