it would seem to me to be a dereliction of duty to not publish a document that says why such a change is made - if ADSP is dangerous then say so in a way that people can understand but if it is just competition to another protocol it does not seem to paint the IETF in a good light to not let the market decide what technology to use - i.e., I would not support the change if it is just to benefit DMARC without there being a actual reason to not use ADSP Scott On Nov 20, 2013, at 2:26 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Well, I'll answer for myself: > > Not necessary. If someone wants to write a document, tho, I wouldn't > try to stop 'em. > > Eliot > > On 11/20/13 8:09 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >>> If someone is willing to write the document and explain why ADSP has >>> been moved to Historic, that's good for capturing lessons learned. I >>> don't think it's required for the status change, but a bonus. >> Do you think that more than this is necessary?: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-adsp-rfc5617-to-historic/ >> >> I should, in particular, direct that question to John, as he's the one >> who brought up the question of documenting why... so I am adding John >> to the "To" here. >> >> Barry >> >> >