Brian,
I won't object if others feel these RFCs ought not be reclassified as Historic. For what it's worth, my request was based on the "has been superseded by a more recent specification" clause of section 4.2.4 of RFC 2026:
4.2.4 Historic
A specification that has been superseded by a more recent
specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is
assigned to the "Historic" level. (Purists have suggested that the
word should be "Historical"; however, at this point the use of
"Historic" is historical.)Are there active WGs using these RFCs as a basis for their work? Are there active software development efforts based on these RFCs? :)
No disrespect intended to any of the authors of these RFCs or the work they did.
Greg
On Mar 21, 2016, at 03:08 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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>GregOn 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 SteeringGroup 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 HistoricThe IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicitsfinal comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to theietf@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf@xxxxxxxx> mailing lists by 2016-04-14. Exceptionally, comments may besent to iesg@xxxxxxxx <mailto:iesg@xxxxxxxx> instead. In either case, please retain thebeginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.The file can be obtained viahttps://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 viahttps://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.