fwiw, writing as diffserv WG co-chair when RFC 2474 was published, we should probably have obsoleted RFC 795 then. As a matter of fact, one of the authors of RFC 2474 was aware of RFC 795 (see draft-blake-diffserv-marking-00.txt), but apparently we dropped the ball. Looking at a message on the IAB list from Rob Austein on this topic in June 2000, I learn that RFC 1122 section 3.2.1.6 already states that RFC 795 is obsolete, so marking it as Historic should actually have happened in 1989. wrt John's point, grep UNKNOWN rfc-index.txt | wc reveals that there are 904 RFCs with Status: UNKNOWN. I don't think this approach scales well. Regards Brian On 11/11/2015 06:36, The IESG 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-mappings-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-mappings-to-historic/ballot/ > > > . >