--On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 14:01 -0500 Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 8/15/13 2:06 PM, SM wrote: >> At 11:48 14-08-2013, IAB Chair wrote: >>> This is a call for review of "List of Internet Official >>> Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database" prior >>> to potential approval as an IAB stream RFC. >> >> My guess is that draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired cannot update >> RFC 2026. Does the IAB have any objection if I do something >> about that? [...] >> The document argues that STD 1 is historic as there is an >> online list now. > > The IESG and the IAB had an email exchange about these two > points. Moving a document from Standard to Historic is really > an IETF thing to do. And it would be quite simple for the IETF > to say, "We are no longer asking for the 'Official Protocol > Standards' RFC to be maintained" by updating (well, > effectively removing) the one paragraph in 2026 that asks for > it, and requesting the move from Standard to Historic. So I > prepared a *very* short document to do that: > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-resnick-retire-std1/ FWIW, I've reviewed your draft and have three comments: (1) You are to be complemented on its length and complexity. (2) I agree that the core issue belongs to the IETF, and IETF Stream, issue, not the RFC Editor and/or IAB. (3) I far prefer this approach to the more complex and convoluted RFC Editor draft. If we really need to do something formally here (about which I still have some small doubts), then let's make it short, focused, and to the point. Your draft appears to accomplish those goals admirably. john