ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Old-standards] Re: [newtrk] List of Old Standards to be retired

2004-12-19 17:28:45
"John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> writes:

    John> Harald,

    John> Sorry, but I've got a procedural problem with this.  I-Ds
    John> can't obsolete anything, even I-Ds approved by the IESG.
    John> While "fiddle with the RFC Editor note in the
    John> announcement..." may be the usual reason for delay, we all
    John> know that documents sometimes change significantly between
    John> the last-published I-D and actual RFC publication.  In
    John> theory, the announcement could be posted, the IDR WG
    John> membership could take a look at it and conclude the AD's RFC
    John> Editor note does not reflect WG consensus, and an appeal of
    John> the announcement could be filed.  As far as I know, that has
    John> never happened, but the procedures clearly permit it and I
    John> can think of a case or two when maybe it should have.  While
    John> we have safeguards to prevent it, it is even possible that a
    John> document inadvertently would change enough during the RFC
    John> editing process that the WG would no longer believe it was
    John> an appropriate replacement for the earlier document.


I don't think everyone believes the procedures work this way.  A while
back, there was a discussion on wgchairs about when the timer started
for a standard moving to draft standard.


My interpretation of that discussion was that it was the protocol
action message that established a new standard, not the publication of
the RFC.

Personally I don't care how it works.  I see both the points you raise
and the arguments in favor of the wgchairs discussion.  To me, either
way of doing things would be valid.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>