I support this status change. > On Mar 17, 2016, at 1:13 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > If we are doing this, then I think that CATNIP (RFC1707) needs to be made > Historic at the same time, even though it didn't need an IP version number. I agree. > > I also recall rumours that some people were actually using ST2 at one point. > Are we sure that it's totally gone away? I think ST2 is historic, so changing it’s status is fine even if it seeing some actual use. Thanks, Bob > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > On 18/03/2016 08:15, The IESG wrote: >> >> The IESG has received a request from the Internet Engineering Steering >> Group IETF (iesg) to consider the following document: >> - 'Moving IP versions 5, 8, and 9 to Historic' >> <status-change-ip-versions-5-8-9-to-historic-01.txt> as 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 2016-04-14. 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 file can be obtained via >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-ip-versions-5-8-9-to-historic/ >> >> IESG discussion can be tracked via >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-ip-versions-5-8-9-to-historic/ballot/ >> >> >> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. >> >> >> >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail