Re: Last Call: <status-change-ip-versions-5-8-9-to-historic-01.txt> (Mov

I support this status change.

> On Mar 17, 2016, at 1:13 PM, Brian E Carpenter 
> <brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
>
> If we are doing this, then I think that CATNIP (RFC1707) needs to be made
> Historic at the same time, even though it didn't need an IP version number.
I agree.

> I also recall rumours that some people were actually using ST2 at one point.
> Are we sure that it's totally gone away?
I think ST2 is historic, so changing it’s status is fine even if it seeing some 
actual use.

Thanks,
Bob



> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter
>
> On 18/03/2016 08:15, The IESG wrote:
> > The IESG has received a request from the Internet Engineering Steering
> > Group IETF (iesg) to consider the following document:
> > - 'Moving IP versions 5, 8, and 9 to Historic'
> >  <status-change-ip-versions-5-8-9-to-historic-01.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 2016-04-14. 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 file can be obtained via
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-ip-versions-5-8-9-to-historic/
> >
> > IESG discussion can be tracked via
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-ip-versions-5-8-9-to-historic/ballot/
> >
> >
> > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail