So, this document obviously became irrelevant years ago. So did
a large variety of other early, "Unknown" status RFCs such as
423, 425, 426, 798, 799, probably 803, etc. Would the IESG care
to explain to the community why this one is worth the trouble
and resources to reclassify and the others are not? Such an
explanation would be particularly helpful in the light of recent
discussions about reducing AD workload because this sort of
housekeeping work is almost certainly not a way to do that.
john
--On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 09:36 -0800 The IESG
<iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual participant
to make the following status changes:
- RFC795 from Unknown to Historic
(Service mappings)
The supporting document for this request can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-service-mapping
s-to-historic/
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
2015-12-08. 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 affected document can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc795/
IESG discussion of this request can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-service-mapping
s-to-historic/ballot/