Russ, all,
Another proposal as for your document. So, it fails to mention what are
the procedures for reclassification of Standards Track RFCs to
Historic. Therefore, I propose the following text:
6. Procedures for Reclassification of Standards Track RFCs as
Historic Documents
Under some circumstances Standards Track RFCs may be reclassified to
Historic document (i. e. its initial status may be changed to
Historic). RFC 2026 [1], as well as its predecessors, contains some
words about the Historic RFCs, but it failes to define the procedures
for reclassification of RFCs to Historic status. Such situation, of
course, causes misunderstandings of the members of the community.
This document removes this uncertainty; it defines the circumstances
under what the Standards Track RFC should be moved to Historic status
and describes the procedures for such action.
The Standards Track RFC, either Proposed Standard or Internet
Standard, should be considered to be appropriate for reclassification
as Historic document if (a) there is another document that replaces it
or (b) it described the protocol or other technology that got out-of-use.
In the case mentioned as (a) above the superseding document should
just have the notice of the necessity of reclassification of its
predecessor to Historic. However such action is not obligatory.
In the case mentioned as (b) above the procedure is as follows. If
the individual or a group of individuals (e. g. IETF working group)
assume that the protocol or other technology defined in the Standards
Track RFC is now out-of-use and is very unlikely to become widely used
in the future, they SHALL apply to IESG to request the
reclassification of such document to Historic. IESG SHALL then issue
the IETF-wide Last Call on this action, not shorter than 2 weeks, in
order to determine whether there is the community consensus on
reclassification. If Last Call did not reveal community objection to
this action, this document SHALL be reclassified to Historic.
During the sunset period, set by this document, Draft Standards SHALL
be reclassified to Historic using the procedure as defined above.
... and renumber the following sections.
What do you think about this proposal?
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
14.03.2011 1:32, Russ Housley wrote:
There have been conflicting suggestions about the best way forward. We have
constructed an updated proposal. It has been posted as
draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-04.
Russ
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf