[apps-discuss] Designating Apps Area related RFCs as Historic (was: Designating SUPDUP-related RFCs as Historic

SM <sm@resistor.net> Thu, 07 July 2011 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59BE321F874A for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C83YjUwcGCwM for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:23:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4735721F8745 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:23:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from subman.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5.Beta0) with ESMTP id p67GNi5m003484; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1310055831; bh=mCbDu0bc/LjW23qbB16n3TknpBTqer8d3QvcBJLpRS0=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To: References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=hU2H0FmtniFbfYBhFLgL1V0wJ06CyjHjWQc0NxDGpmKwM++MqKrU6Ywe5npS3tEpY ZuduT+GXbZc7gSsOw8s5+Z6I0PPaoEQDRYi9Ifcown3UeQ7BXec+66QVk+yzYj1Ku1 ztpkvvPvucoYp864OIk8II7/O6rJY/oqzAmUU7Uk=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1310055831; bh=mCbDu0bc/LjW23qbB16n3TknpBTqer8d3QvcBJLpRS0=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To: References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=sIq48O1T2xvvEGdFtK48JX6gFg7o8ShydsE2mjKta1nZyNho7YcIZBtRJECWC4E3g 5akOQrL9iIEp6fS96bxzerHn+z0/4u3p4eOFmxg2z0DQDka+v+hwKyU88sa7vT9p5g L4zY9xpezLMtsufXDz1VGS4qhZc++ROjJm86hA7g=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110707072837.055b9700@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 08:39:15 -0700
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4E1594B2.9060409@gmail.com>
References: <4E158722.60101@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110707031904.04dcc150@resistor.net> <4E1594B2.9060409@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: [apps-discuss] Designating Apps Area related RFCs as Historic (was: Designating SUPDUP-related RFCs as Historic
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:23:57 -0000

Hi Mykyta,
At 04:12 07-07-2011, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>RFC 4450 was an effort of bulk reclassification, as mentioned 
>there.  My proposal is to historicize 4 RFCs.  It is caused by a 
>simple omission when moving RFC 734 to Historic.

The following drafts are about a reclassification to Historic:

   draft-yevstifeyev-tsvwg-irtp-to-historic-01
   draft-yevstifeyev-foobar-to-historic-00

Starting with the message at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg02214.html 
, the topic of reclassification to Historic came up regularly since 
the beginning of the year.  As you seem interested in doing the work, 
I suggest that:

  (i)   You post an Internet-Draft with a list of (Apps Area) RFCs that you
        would like to see reclassified

  (ii)  Ask the Apps Area ADs to present the I-D at a meeting so that
        anyone interested is aware of the reclassification work

  (iii) Follow up on the Apps-discuss mailing list

  (iv)  Extended Last Call

The other alternative is:

  (i)   Post a message every few months about reclassifying some Apps Area
        specification

  (ii)  Post an I-D

  (iii) Last Call

  (iv)  Go back to step (i)

I'll quote a point [1] that has been raised previously:

   "If there are others who feel that Mykyta's efforts are worth our time, by
    all means speak up and I'm happy to back down here."

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg02224.html