fwiw, writing as diffserv WG co-chair when RFC 2474 was published, we should
probably
have obsoleted RFC 795 then. As a matter of fact, one of the authors of RFC
2474 was
aware of RFC 795 (see draft-blake-diffserv-marking-00.txt), but apparently we
dropped the ball.
Looking at a message on the IAB list from Rob Austein on this topic in June
2000,
I learn that RFC 1122 section 3.2.1.6 already states that RFC 795 is obsolete,
so marking it as Historic should actually have happened in 1989.
wrt John's point, grep UNKNOWN rfc-index.txt | wc reveals that there are 904
RFCs with Status: UNKNOWN. I don't think this approach scales well.
Regards
Brian
On 11/11/2015 06:36, The IESG 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-mappings-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-mappings-to-historic/ballot/
.