Ben: >>>> Why are we having a second Last Call on this document? >>>> >>>> The first Last Call began on 16 Feb 2018 and ended on 16 Mar 2018. >>> >>> II[UR]C, the process for moving things to historic requires a >>> separate status-change document that goes out for 4-week IETF LC >>> alongside the document effecting the status change. I don't think >>> the status-change document existed in last month's last call. >> >> Indeed it did. I do not know whether the Last Call properly included it, bu the history tab clearly shows that the status change document was created on 10 Feb 2018. >> >> See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-suiteb-to-historic/history/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-suiteb-to-historic/history/> > > I was just looking at > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/maillist.html, > which does *not* show an IETF Last Call being issued for > "Reclassification of Suite B Documents to Historic Status" (the > status change document) until today. So that seems to be the part > that was missed last time. I do not believe that the additional month will yield any new information. I do not think that anyone who read the document missed the reclassification. The Abstract includes it: This document reclassifies the RFCs related to the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) Suite B cryptographic algorithms as Historic, and it discusses the reasons for doing so. This document moves seven informational RFCs to Historic Status: RFC 5759, RFC 6239, RFC 6318, RFC 6379, RFC 6380, RFC 6403, and RFC 6460. In addition, this document moves three obsolete informational RFCs to Historic Status: RFC 4869, RFC 5008, and RFC 5430. The status-change document is essentially the same information, and it even points to draft-housley-suite-b-to-historic for the full rationale. Russ
