Hello,
The proposed statement is mostly fine. But, since RFC 2026 gives very
little information on some issues, I'd like you considered them in the
statement.
First, for RFCs of what categories is it legitimate to move them to
Historic. Whether Experimental or Informational RFCs could be
considered for such action? As far as I understand RFC 2026, Historic
can be assigned to Standards Track documents; however it won't be
excessive to clarify this regulation in the IESG statement additionally.
I support the opinion that the information on what the particular RFC
moves to Historic shouldn't go in the Abstract; the current practice is
also the same (see eg. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6265, end of
Section 1). Let's mention it is only put in the Introduction.
The proposed statement says almost nothing about how the RFC may be
moved to Historic status without the necessity to publish a separate RFC
for this purpose. Here I agree with John Klensin. Let's adopt
something like proposed in
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-newtrk-cruft-00.txt, but more
lightweight. What I mean is that the procedure should be:
(1) an individual or a group of individuals apply to the appropriate AD
for moving some specification to Historic;
(2) AD asks Secretariat to issue a 2-to-4-week Last Call on
reclassification;
(3) once community consensus is determined, AD brings the question to
IESG's attention via putting it on agenda as "Management Issue";
(4) if IESG does not object, the announcement is sent to RFC Editor and
copied to IETF Announce list containing request to change the particular
RFC's status to Historic.
Such procedure seems lightweight enough not to create dozens of new RFCs
reclassifying the old ones but have the appropriate community involvement.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
02.06.2011 22:17, Sean Turner wrote:
The IESG is considering making this statement on the IESG Handling of
Historic status.
We would appreciate community feedback.
Please can we have feedback by Thursday 9th June.
Thanks
spt
<statement begins>
RFC 2026 states the following:
A specification that has been superseded by a more recent
specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is
assigned to the "Historic" level.
In practice, the Historic status is not automatically assigned to RFCs
that have been "obsoleted". That is, when an RFC that contains the
"Obsoletes: RFC XXXX" header is published the RFC editor does not
automatically apply the Historic status to the XXXX RFC. Note that in
some situations this is perfectly acceptable because multiple versions
of an Internet Standard are permitted to "honor the installed base,"
as per RFC 2026.
If authors wish to change the status of RFCs that are in the obsoletes
header to Historic, then the authors must include an explicit
statement for the RFC editor to do so; preferably in the abstract and
introduction. Further, when an AD sponsors a draft that includes the
obsoletes header, then the AD should ask the authors whether the
authors intended to move the RFC(s) listed in the obsoletes header to
Historic status.
If an author wishes to publish a document directly to Historic status
the preferred approach is to publish an I-D with the "Intended Status:
Historic" in the header.
Moving a document to Historic status means that the document is "not
[an] Internet Standards in any sense," as per RFC 2026.
</statement ends>
_______________________________________________
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