Earlier, on 29th October 2011, Mike StJohns wrote, in part: > With respect to the other four documents (e.g. Milo's baby et al) -- > they aren't IETF documents, they weren't adopted as > Internet Standards (unlike TCP and IP) and we shouldn't be > twiddling with their status. They don't belong to us. Agreed. The IETF/IESG do not have the authority to change the status of any RFC that is neither (A) an Internet standards-track document nor (B) an IETF Track document. For ancient documents believed to be in category (A), the various "IAB Official Protocol Standards" RFCs (e.g. RFC-1083) are authoritative about which ancient RFCs are or have been on the Internet standards-track. I raised this same issue in the past, and the issue was resolved then without the IETF/IESG incorrectly claiming overly broad authority. A reasonable resolution in such cases, if/when the IETF/IESG really consider it important and a wise use of time, is to gain the advance explicit permission of the authors of the RFC being reclassified and documenting that their permission to reclassify was obtained in advance of the reclassification. Perhaps this needs to be written down somewhere so there won't be confusion on this point in future ? > Most of the pre-1000 RFCs are neither standards nor even > technical in nature. A number of them are administrivia > of the early Internet and ARPANET. Agreed, and frankly the status of such documents generally is not worth thinking about, let alone changing. Yours, Ran _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf