Re: Last Call: <draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00.txt> (Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110, RFC1145, RFC1146, RFC1263, RFC1379, RFC1644 and RFC1693 to Historic Status) to Informational RFC
2011-02-03 09:03:28
Hello all,
While I fully agree with what this document proposes. This might be an
editorial comment but I 've noticed that RFC 1072 is not mentioned to be
made Historic despite the option specified by it is made obsolete. What
is more, referencing all the documents made obsolete normatively is OK?
Here I suggest only RFC 4614 to be mentioned in this way.
However I'd like to raise some questions not directly connected to this
document. I wonder why those who said a few weeks ago that
historicizing some documents in the similar situation is not appropriate
do not object now. The arguments of these folks were that RFC 2026 sets
the criteria for Historic status as 'replaced by other doc' and did not
consider 'being deprecated' (what exactly we have in the current case)
as weighty reason for historicizing document.
Moreover, there are no clear procedures for moving documents to
Historic. So everybody who wants to propose to move some RFC to
Historic must think out what procedures should be used or find them out
in the most recent documents.
Up to this day there are neither any clear definition of Historic RFC
status nor procedures for historicizing RFCs. Should this continue?
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
02.02.2011 23:51, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the TCP Maintenance and Minor
Extensions WG (tcpm) to consider the following document:
- 'Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110,
RFC1145, RFC1146, RFC1263, RFC1379, RFC1644 and RFC1693 to Historic
Status'
<draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00.txt> as an Informational RFC
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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2011-02-16. Exceptionally, comments
may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: Last Call: <draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00.txt> (Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110, RFC1145, RFC1146, RFC1263, RFC1379, RFC1644 and RFC1693 to Historic Status) to Informational RFC,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev <=
- Re: Last Call: <draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00.txt> (Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110, RFC1145, RFC1146, RFC1263, RFC1379, RFC1644 and RFC1693 to Historic Status) to Informational RFC, Lars Eggert
- Re: Last Call: <draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00.txt> (Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110, RFC1145, RFC1146, RFC1263, RFC1379, RFC1644 and RFC1693 to Historic Status) to Informational RFC, Benjamin Niven-Jenkins
|
Previous by Date: |
Re: TSVDIR review of draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues-02, Masataka Ohta |
Next by Date: |
FW: NomCom 2010-2011: IAB Appointments, Thomas Walsh |
Previous by Thread: |
draft-yevstifeyev-genarea-historic-02, Mykyta Yevstifeyev |
Next by Thread: |
Re: Last Call: <draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00.txt> (Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110, RFC1145, RFC1146, RFC1263, RFC1379, RFC1644 and RFC1693 to Historic Status) to Informational RFC, Lars Eggert |
Indexes: |
[Date]
[Thread]
[Top]
[All Lists] |
|
|