I support reclassification as proposed.
Regards,
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: IETF-Announce [mailto:ietf-announce-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of
The IESG
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 12:40 AM
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: diffserv-chairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
draft-ietf-rap-sppi(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; draft-ietf-rap-
pr(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; kmn(_at_)mountainfog(_dot_)com;
draft-ietf-rap-frameworkpib(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
rap-chairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; bclaise(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com;
draft-ietf-rap-feedback-fr-
pib(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; draft-ietf-diffserv-pib(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
ops-area(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Last Call: <status-change-copspr-sppi-to-historic-00.txt>
(Reclassification of COPS-PR and SPPI (RFC 3084, 3159, 3317, 3318, and 3571)
to Historic) to Historic
The IESG has received a request from the Internet Engineering Steering
Group IETF (iesg) to consider the following document:
- 'Reclassification of COPS-PR and SPPI (RFC 3084, 3159, 3317, 3318, and
3571) to Historic'
<status-change-copspr-sppi-to-historic-00.txt> as 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 2016-02-10. 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.
Abstract