Re: [newtrk] Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic
Yes, this seems pretty close to the IETF DPW. Unfortunately, the draft has expired (I saw the report on the experiment, but even that seems rather preliminary, in that no actual action to HISTORIC has been taken). Is there a plan to act on the recommendation of draft-ietf-newtrk-cruft-00 in the foreseeable future? Have you seen draft-ietf-newtrk-cruft-00? It proposes something along these lines. John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [newtrk] Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic
Brian, > >>What is the reason for continuing to list something > obsolete as a Draft Standard? > > > > > > Lack of action by the IESG. > > No, lack of action by the community to request moving > documents to Historic. Section 6.2 of 2026 does say the following: When a standards-track specification has not reached the Internet Standard level but has remained at the same maturity level for twenty-four (24) months, and every twelve (12) months thereafter until the status is changed, the IESG shall review the viability of the standardization effort responsible for that specification and the usefulness of the technology. Following each such review, the IESG shall approve termination or continuation of the development effort, at the same time the IESG shall decide to maintain the specification at the same maturity level or to move it to Historic status. My guess is that anything marked as obsolete will be stuck at its current maturity level in perpetuity, making it a good candidate to go to Historic. 2026 seems to state that the IESG will handle this. However, Eliot's Crust removal draft could come to play here. John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [newtrk] Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic
Henning,
> > No, lack of action by the community to request moving documents to
> > Historic.
>
> There seem to be a number of these housekeeping tasks that have almost
> no benefit to the individual, have increasing costs and ever longer-term
> commitments and thus, not surprisingly, don't get done on a regular
> basis. Promotion and demotion of standards are prime examples, reviewing
> is another.
>
> Besides appealing to community spirit, other organizations deal with
> that by deputizing individuals that get recognized for doing this type
> of work in general, in one way or the other. This can take the "New
> York's Strongest" (Dept. of Sanitation) or the "XYZ
> secretary" approach.
>
> In many cases, people do unpleasant or boring or no-immediate-reward
> tasks in hope of getting promoted later - this is why I suggested WG
> secretaries earlier and maybe why having elected IESG secretaries or the
> IETF Dept. of Public Works ("just leave your old standards at the curb")
> might be needed.
Have you seen draft-ietf-newtrk-cruft-00? It proposes something along
these lines.
John
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [newtrk] Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic
Bruce Lilly wrote: On Mon July 11 2005 02:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This really made me scratch my head. One would imagine if a protocol is obsoleted by another, it would not be listed as a Draft Standard any longer. What is the reason for continuing to list something obsolete as a Draft Standard? Lack of action by the IESG. No, lack of action by the community to request moving documents to Historic. And confusion in the standards process as to whether a new PS or DS truly replaces an old STD, but that's something we've already beaten to death in newtrk. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [newtrk] Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic
No, lack of action by the community to request moving documents to
Historic.
There seem to be a number of these housekeeping tasks that have almost
no benefit to the individual, have increasing costs and ever longer-term
commitments and thus, not surprisingly, don't get done on a regular
basis. Promotion and demotion of standards are prime examples, reviewing
is another.
Besides appealing to community spirit, other organizations deal with
that by deputizing individuals that get recognized for doing this type
of work in general, in one way or the other. This can take the "New
York's Strongest" (Dept. of Sanitation) or the "XYZ secretary" approach.
In many cases, people do unpleasant or boring or no-immediate-reward
tasks in hope of getting promoted later - this is why I suggested WG
secretaries earlier and maybe why having elected IESG secretaries or the
IETF Dept. of Public Works ("just leave your old standards at the curb")
might be needed.
Henning
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [newtrk] Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic
On Mon July 11 2005 02:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > This really made me scratch my head. One would imagine if a protocol is > obsoleted > by another, it would not be listed as a Draft Standard any longer. > > What is the reason for continuing to list something obsolete as a Draft > Standard? Lack of action by the IESG. The RFC Editor maintains the rfc-index, and as far as I can tell does a good job of handling the updates/obsoletes/ updated by/obsoleted by information. Moving an RFC from the Standards Track to Historic, however, requires a Standards Action which has to be approved by the IESG per BCP 9, either as part of the review process (section 6.2) which the IESG ignores, or per section 6.4. In practice moving a document to Historic only seems to happen as a result of a rather complicated process where somebody writes yet another RFC suggesting a reclassification of some RFC as Historic, which if approved leads to the Standards Action (see draft-lear-newtrk-decruft-experiment-00.txt). Other cases include full Standards which have been obsoleted, such as STD 10 and STD 11. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [newtrk] Question about Obsoleted vs. Historic
What is the reason for continuing to list something obsolete as a Draft Standard? Ummm, because most people don't notice standards maturity levels? But the idea of an "obsolete Best CURRENT Practice" makes MY head hurt... Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
