Earlier, on 29th October 2011, Mike StJohns wrote, in part:
With respect to the other four documents (e.g. Milo's baby et al) --
they aren't IETF documents, they weren't adopted as
Internet Standards (unlike TCP and IP) and we shouldn't be
twiddling with their status. They don't belong to us.
Agreed.
The IETF/IESG do not have the authority to change the
status of any RFC that is neither (A) an Internet
standards-track document nor (B) an IETF Track document.
For ancient documents believed to be in category (A),
the various "IAB Official Protocol Standards" RFCs
(e.g. RFC-1083) are authoritative about which ancient
RFCs are or have been on the Internet standards-track.
I raised this same issue in the past, and the issue was
resolved then without the IETF/IESG incorrectly claiming
overly broad authority. A reasonable resolution in such
cases, if/when the IETF/IESG really consider it important
and a wise use of time, is to gain the advance explicit
permission of the authors of the RFC being reclassified
and documenting that their permission to reclassify
was obtained in advance of the reclassification.
Perhaps this needs to be written down somewhere
so there won't be confusion on this point in future ?
Most of the pre-1000 RFCs are neither standards nor even
technical in nature. A number of them are administrivia
of the early Internet and ARPANET.
Agreed, and frankly the status of such documents generally
is not worth thinking about, let alone changing.
Yours,
Ran
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf