On 04/21/2012 11:44 AM, Ronald Bonica wrote: > I am willing to bet that you laughed at least once while scanning > this list. I got a chuckle from RFC 1475, the IPv7 experiment. But > seriously, I identified nearly a dozen RFCs that fell into one of the > following categories: > > - should have been obsolete by subsequent Standards Track documents, > but weren't - are more than 10 years old and have not gained > traction, generally because an alternative approach has gained > traction and become widely deployed (e.g., RFC 1393 - Traceroute > Using an IP Option). [...] While I have not yet gone through the proposed IESG statement in detail, I believe that the goal of "specs' and registry's clean-up" is important. There's *plenty* of stuff that should have been deprecated many years ago, but hasn't. And that stuff is intermixed with current (although not widely used in the public Internet). The result? Folks deciding e.g. what to filter end up relying on guesswork (sometimes filtering stuff they shouldn't, and the other way around). -- Not to mention that many references in e.g. the IANA registries are completely out of date, and hence it's very difficult to make an informed decision (even if one does bother to). My understanding is that the IETF is expected to maintain its own specifications. But going through the RFC list and/or some of the IANA registries seems to indicate that this is not necessarily the case. As noted above, I will go through the proposed IESG statement in detail and comment. However, even if what's being proposed is not seen as the proper way forward, there's still a problem (specs maintenance) that needs to be addressed somehow. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando@xxxxxxxxxxx || fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1