Totally agree with Bert here. tom > On Mar 3, 2016, at 9:01 AM, Bert Wijnen (IETF) <bertietf@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I support moving COPS-PR to historic. > As far as I know, it never really picked up traction in the industry. > > Bert > >> On 02/03/16 15:56, The IESG wrote: >> >> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider >> the following document: >> - 'Reclassification of COPS-PR and SPPI to Historic' >> <draft-schoenw-opsawg-copspr-historic-03.txt> as Informational RFC >> >> To follow the procedure 2 at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/designating-rfcs-as-historic.html, we need an IETF Last Call for this draft. Note that https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-copspr-sppi-to-historic/ had already its 2 weeks IETF Last Call >> >> 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 2016-03-30. Exceptionally, comments may be >> sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the >> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >> >> Abstract >> >> >> This memo reclassifies RFC 3084, COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning, >> and RFC 3159, Structure of Policy Provisioning Information, to >> Historic status. This memo obsoletes RFC 3084, RFC 3159, RFC 3317, >> RFC 3318, and RFC 3571. >> >> >> >> >> The file can be obtained via >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoenw-opsawg-copspr-historic/ >> >> IESG discussion can be tracked via >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoenw-opsawg-copspr-historic/ballot/ >> >> >> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. >