I would note that progression to Internet Standard seems to have more to do with availability of interested folks to do the work and little to with acceptance of the protocol. HTTP has been hanging at DS for many years and that hasn't stopped its wide acceptance. Yes, there is now a WG working through extensive document improvements, but until that effort started, HTTP work had been dormant for years. The IETF would have been laughed at if we'd removed HTTP from standards track. I see no reason to invoke bureaucratic wheel spinning to reclassify a forgotten document. On Sun, 4 Sep 2011, Eric Burger wrote: > Why? No one has cared about the annual review from 2026. No one has > time to do the bookkeeping and spend the effort to evaluate stuck > documents. > > If there is an RFC that is harmful, then one can always ask to have it > moved to Historic. > > On Sep 4, 2011, at 10:23 AM, todd glassey wrote: > > > There are any number of IETF RFC's which were published and then > > accepted in the community under the proviso 'that they would become > > IETF standards' which in many instances they do not. Further many of > > them are abandoned in an uncompleted mode as standards efforts. > > > > To that end I would like to propose the idea that any IETF RFC which > > is submitted to the Standards Track which has sat unchanged in a > > NON-STANDARD status for more than 3 years is struck down and removed > > formally from the Standards Track because of failure to perform on the > > continued commitment to evolve those standards. > > > > Why this is necessary is that the IETF has become a tool of companies > > which are trying to get specific IETF approval for their wares and > > protocols - whether they are open in form or not. The IETF entered > > into a contract with these people to establish their standard and > > published those documents on the standards track so that they would be > > completed. Since they have not been completed as IETF Standards the > > Project Managers for those submissions have formally breached their > > contract to complete that process with both their WG members who > > vetted those works as well as the rest of the IETF's relying parties. > > > > As such it is reasonable to put a BURN DATE on any Standards Track > > effort which has stalled or stopped dead in its tracks for years. > > > > Todd Glassey _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf