Hi John,
Since I started the last call on this, I will take a crack at
answering your question.
On 11/10/15 12:51 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> So, this document obviously became irrelevant years ago. So did
> a large variety of other early, "Unknown" status RFCs such as
> 423, 425, 426, 798, 799, probably 803, etc. Would the IESG care
> to explain to the community why this one is worth the trouble
> and resources to reclassify and the others are not? Such an
> explanation would be particularly helpful in the light of recent
> discussions about reducing AD workload because this sort of
> housekeeping work is almost certainly not a way to do that.
I had an IETF participant contact me and ask how he could help move 795
to Historic. He provided the material described in the status change
document to support this move. The amount of work I had to do as an AD
was minimized by someone taking the initiative to compile the material.
If someone wants to see other document status changes, I think this is a
good template.
Regards,
Brian
>
> john
>
>
> --On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 09:36 -0800 The IESG
> <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>> The IESG has received a request from an individual participant
>> to make the following status changes:
>>
>> - RFC795 from Unknown to Historic
>> (Service mappings)
>>
>> The supporting document for this request can be found here:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-service-mapping
>> s-to-historic/
>>
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
>> solicits final comments on this action. Please send
>> substantive comments to the ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by
>> 2015-12-08. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to
>> iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the
>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>
>> The affected document can be obtained via
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc795/
>>
>> IESG discussion of this request can be tracked via
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-service-mapping
>> s-to-historic/ballot/
>>
>>
>
>
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature