On Nov 12, 2021, at 08:28, Masataka Ohta <mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> Kim Davies wrote: > >> Datatracker link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-davies-int-historic/ >> It’s a short document, but at its heart we’ve identified the >> following domains that are referenced in places but seem to be obsolete: > > That's fine. As the decision is made by IANA/ICANN, not IETF, it is > appropriate that the intended status is not BCP but informational. The operational decisions relating to these things have already been made, as I understand it -- the delegations no longer exist. Kim and Amanda's document seems to have two purposes: (1) to document this operational reality, and (2) to update protocol specifications to reflect that operational reality. I don't see a conflict or expect a difficulty, but I don't think decisions relating to (2) lie solely with PTI; the IETF ought to have a hand in making them, which I think is what Kim and Amanda are trying to facilitate here. Having said all that I think it's possible that the only domain under INT that has been implicated in standards-track documents is IP6.INT, and that was taken care of long ago. So I am not arguing with you about Informational, which is quite possibly the right thing. Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
