Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

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

 



04.06.2011 23:59, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:

Hello,

The proposed statement is mostly fine. But, since RFC 2026 gives very little information on some issues, I'd like you considered them in the statement.

First, for RFCs of what categories is it legitimate to move them to Historic. Whether Experimental or Informational RFCs could be considered for such action? As far as I understand RFC 2026, Historic can be assigned to Standards Track documents; however it won't be excessive to clarify this regulation in the IESG statement additionally.

My understanding is that any RFC can be moved to Historic. But if this is not clear from RFC 2026, maybe it is worth clarifying.
It isn't really clear from RFC 2026 - so let's mention this in the statement.

I support the opinion that the information on what the particular RFC moves to Historic shouldn't go in the Abstract; the current practice is also the same (see eg. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6265, end of Section 1). Let's mention it is only put in the Introduction.

The proposed statement says almost nothing about how the RFC may be moved to Historic status without the necessity to publish a separate RFC for this purpose. Here I agree with John Klensin. Let's adopt something like proposed in http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-newtrk-cruft-00.txt, but more lightweight. What I mean is that the procedure should be:

(1) an individual or a group of individuals apply to the appropriate AD for moving some specification to Historic;

(2) AD asks Secretariat to issue a 2-to-4-week Last Call on reclassification;

(3) once community consensus is determined, AD brings the question to IESG's attention via putting it on agenda as "Management Issue";

From the pedantic deparment:

As a matter of clarification: it is already possible to move an RFC to Historic without new draft using the datatracker. The RFC is added to datatracker (just like a draft), etc. This is not going to be a management item, it would appear as a proper document on IESG agenda.
This is possible as well and even more preferable. I surely don't know, but I haven't seen any RFCs moved to Historic in this way, but I agree this way is good.

So, I'd like to make the following corrections to my proposal:

(1) the reclassification issue should firstly be discussed in the appropriate WG (or on the appropriate mailing list);

(2) once a rough consensus is achieved, an individual or a group of individuals apply to the appropriate AD for moving some RFC to Historic;

(3) upon ensuring the adequate pre-IESG community involvement, the AD adds the RFC in the Datatracker with the Interned Status "Historic" and requests the Secretariat to issue a 2-to-4-week Last Call on reclassification;

(4) once community consensus is determined, AD brings the question to IESG's attention by issuing a ballot and putting the issue on the IESG agenda;

(5) as soon as IESG approve the reclassification, the announcement is sent to RFC Editor and copied to IETF Announce list containing request to change the particular RFC's status to Historic.

Here the new (1) was missing from the old one; other changes incorporate Alexey's comment.

All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

"Management items" are second class citizens during IESG telechats...

(4) if IESG does not object, the announcement is sent to RFC Editor and copied to IETF Announce list containing request to change the particular RFC's status to Historic.

Such procedure seems lightweight enough not to create dozens of new RFCs reclassifying the old ones but have the appropriate community involvement.




_______________________________________________
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]