Closing the loop on this: I see very strong and very broad agreement with taking this action: reclassifying ADSP (RFC 5617) as Historic. I see two objections: One, by Hector, is that ADSP does have a lot of deployment: there's code out there, both open source and commercial, that implements it, and there are enough publications of ADSP records to demonstrate that it's in use. Another, by John Klensin and Alessandro, that making ADSP historic is fine, but that it should be done with a document that explains the deployment situation and explains why the reclassification is appropriate despite that. Alessandro also wants us to consider fixing ADSP instead. Hector is certainly correct that code was quickly written and shipped to implement ADSP, so there is plenty of deployed code. The contention, though, is that ADSP is not providing the benefits it was intended to, and is, in fact, actually causing harm due to misuse and misconfiguration. Those factors make it important for us to officially recommend that it NOT be used -- hence the reclassification. I have asked for, and not seen, any real data showing benefits from ADSP. John has a reasonable point about writing up an explanation, and we have had volunteers to do so. The IESG will consider whether that is a better approach than just changing the RFC's metadata. As to Alessandro's point about fixing ADSP, it's clear that there is no community interest in doing that in a way that remains compatible with RFC 5617's specification. I see, therefore, clear consensus to make this status change, either through a simple metadata change or accompanied by an explanatory document. The IESG will decide how to proceed. Barry, Applications AD