Greg, I object to reclassifying RFC 1752 (the IPng recommendation itself). Admittedly, it *is* a historic document in the true meaning of the word, but I don't think its status as PS is wrong - it expresses the fact that there was rough consensus in 1994. Just because a document is old doesn't make it obsolete. I also don't see the point in reclassifying RFC 1550 (the IPng white paper solicitation). It is informational today just as it was then. I object to reclassifying RFC 1380 (the ROAD report). Again, it is informational about the situation in 1992. Actually, I think that everybody should read it every couple of years. Finally I object to reclassifying RFC 1287 (the IAB/IESG "Future Internet Architecture" paper). It's information on how things looked in 1991. Also, if issued today, it would most likely be in the IAB document stream, so the IESG can't reclassify it anyway. Regards Brian On 22/03/2016 10:18, Greg Skinner wrote: > If it is not too late, I would like to request that RFCs 1287, 1380, 1550, and 1752 also be moved to Historic. 1287, 1380, and 1752 are referenced in the draft (1550 is referenced from 1752), and concern the replacement of IPv4 with (what would eventually become) IPv6. > > Please see the following link from the sunset4 WG for more information. > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sunset4/dsUpNpJsZZt4IEfS4afJKOyExnU <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sunset4/dsUpNpJsZZt4IEfS4afJKOyExnU> > > Greg > >> On Mar 17, 2016, at 12:15 PM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx <mailto:iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx>> 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 <mailto:ietf@xxxxxxxx> mailing lists by 2016-04-14. Exceptionally, comments may be >> sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx <mailto: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/ <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. >> >> >> > >