Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

2011-06-02 Thread Sean Turner
The IESG is considering making this statement on the IESG Handling of Historic status. We would appreciate community feedback. Please can we have feedback by Thursday 9th June. Thanks spt RFC 2026 states the following: A specification that has been superseded by a more recent specificatio

Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

2011-06-02 Thread Sam Hartman
I'd prefer that we not clutter abstracts with instructions to the RFC editor and prefer that the IESG only recommend such statements in the introduction. I'm OK with whatever here though: the IESG should go do something intelligent in this space. ___ Ietf

Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

2011-06-02 Thread John C Klensin
Sean, Seems fine to me but, like Sam, I'd prefer to not clutter abstracts For a specification RFC that is rendered Historic by a new specification, the combination of an "Obsoletes" header and a note in the Introduction ought to be sufficient. While the IESG is considering this, I would encourag

RE: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

2011-06-02 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
> -Original Message- > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sam > Hartman > Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 12:47 PM > To: Sean Turner > Cc: ietf@ietf.org; The IESG > Subject: Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status &g

Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

2011-06-02 Thread Scott Brim
On Jun 2, 2011 4:05 PM, "John C Klensin" wrote: > While the IESG is considering this, I would encourage you to > also consider the model used to make a specification that is > simply and obviously obsolete (and in A/S terms "not > recommended") Historic without having to have an I-D written and >

Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

2011-06-02 Thread Pete Resnick
On 6/2/11 4:45 PM, Scott Brim wrote: On Jun 2, 2011 4:05 PM, "John C Klensin" > wrote: >But for the "no one cares about it any more" cases, it seems like a > lighter-weight procedure, such as a Last Call on the question > "does anyone believe that our impression that n

Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

2011-06-02 Thread SM
At 01:04 PM 6/2/2011, John C Klensin wrote: While the IESG is considering this, I would encourage you to also consider the model used to make a specification that is simply and obviously obsolete (and in A/S terms "not recommended") Historic without having to have an I-D written and processed int

Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

2011-06-02 Thread John C Klensin
--On Thursday, June 02, 2011 17:51 -0500 Pete Resnick wrote: >> Agree, but producing such a "no one cares anymore" RFC and >> getting it through the process should be lightweight enough >> already. It should slide right through. For better or worse, I don't believe that has been the experien

Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

2011-06-02 Thread Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Hello, The proposed statement is mostly fine. But, since RFC 2026 gives very little information on some issues, I'd like you considered them in the statement. First, for RFCs of what categories is it legitimate to move them to Historic. Whether Experimental or Informational RFCs could be

Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

2011-06-04 Thread Alexey Melnikov
John C Klensin wrote: Sean, Seems fine to me but, like Sam, I'd prefer to not clutter abstracts For a specification RFC that is rendered Historic by a new specification, the combination of an "Obsoletes" header and a note in the Introduction ought to be sufficient. I don't mind having a not

Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

2011-06-04 Thread Alexey Melnikov
Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: Hello, The proposed statement is mostly fine. But, since RFC 2026 gives very little information on some issues, I'd like you considered them in the statement. First, for RFCs of what categories is it legitimate to move them to Historic. Whether Experimental or I

Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

2011-06-04 Thread Mykyta Yevstifeyev
04.06.2011 23:59, Alexey Melnikov wrote: Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: Hello, The proposed statement is mostly fine. But, since RFC 2026 gives very little information on some issues, I'd like you considered them in the statement. First, for RFCs of what categories is it legitimate to move the

RE: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

2011-06-04 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
> -Original Message- > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Alexey Melnikov > Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 2:00 PM > To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev > Cc: ietf@ietf.org; The IESG > Subject: Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Histori

Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

2011-06-06 Thread Barry Leiba
>> My understanding is that any RFC can be moved to Historic. But if this >> is not clear from RFC 2026, maybe it is worth clarifying. > > If 2026 doesn't limit what types of RFCs can become Historic, then I presume > any of them can.  I'm not sure we need to make that explicit. I'm sure we don't.

Re: Proposed text for IESG Handling of Historic Status

2011-06-06 Thread Fred Baker
I think that there are three sets of proposed state changes - what the author would like to do, what the working group if any agrees to do, and what the IESG wants to instruct the RFC Editor should ultimately be done. There is no reason they all have to be the same. For example, a document autho