Oh, and a quick update -- someone poked me off-list to point out that I should have updated the Last Call text to note that this doesn't get published as an RFC directly, instead: "An individual or a working group posts an Internet Draft containing an explanation of the reason for the status change. The I-D is discussed and iterated as usual for I-Ds. At some point, it is sent to an appropriate AD to request publication. The AD creates a status-change document, with an explanation that points to the I-D. The I-D and the status-change are then last-called together, after which the IESG evaluates and ballots on both. If the change is approved, the content of the I-D is moved into the status-change document, and the I-D is marked as "dead", having served its purpose." -- https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/designating-rfcs-historic-2014-07-20/ They are right, I should have noted this... We very seldom do status-changes to Historic[0], and so the process is somewhat unfamiliar. This shouldn't change anyone's behavior, etc, but don't expect to see this particular document show up as RFCxxxx. Here endeth the process wonkery for the day... W [0]: This is, IMO, a separate issue... On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 7:42 PM The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG > (dnsop) to consider the following document: - 'Moving DNSSEC Lookaside > Validation (DLV) to Historic Status' > <draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv-00.txt> as Informational RFC > > Please note that this is primarily to support: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-dlv-to-historic > and should be read with that. > > We are using option 2 of > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/designating-rfcs-historic-2014-07-20/ > > > 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 2019-09-18. 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 document obsoletes DNSSEC lookaside validation (DLV) and > reclassifies RFCs 4431 and 5074 as Historic. > > > > > The file can be obtained via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv/ballot/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf
