--On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 07:41 -0700 The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The IESG has received a request from an individual participant > to make the following status changes: > > - RFC5617 from Proposed Standard to Historic > > The supporting document for this request can be found here: > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-adsp-rfc5617-to- > historic/ Hi. Just to be sure that everyone has the same understanding of what is being proposed here, the above says "to Historic" but the writeup at http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-adsp-rfc5617-to-historic/ says "to Internet Standard". Can one or the other be corrected? After reading the description at the link cited above and assuming that "Historic" is actually intended, I wonder, procedurally, whether a move to Historic without document other than in the tracker is an appropriate substitute for the publication of an Applicability Statement that says "not recommended" and that explains, at least in the level of detail of the tracker entry, why using ADSP is a bad idea. If there were no implementations and no evidence that anyone cared about this, my inclination would be to just dispose of RFC 5617 as efficiently and with as little effort as possible. But, since the tracker entry says that there are implementations and that misconfiguration has caused harm (strongly implying that there has even been deployment), it seems to me that a clear and affirmative "not recommended" applicability statement is in order. thanks, john