[apps-discuss] Designating SUPDUP-related RFCs as Historic

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Thu, 07 July 2011 10:14 UTC

Return-Path: <evnikita2@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F34D821F869A for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 03:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.526
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.526 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.073, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5-Kk5wsNpkQl for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 03:14:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 289C321F84AC for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 03:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwb17 with SMTP id 17so857577bwb.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 03:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=5yxFGqg2kZk5ymS1uVaKsjt45aJvYkQyGdq93bAcyPc=; b=iGwfVfwLEUKvgukBQdYcUgxsm8blbEiJ1Op5A41Ndb4x9ij8yPjESk7+a3w/WkE6dj +qF8dyVglRjh2GMkpnjplxWQxJUh1ddSyinf+nsarIdOWR2Ec8rClHGTwu6OElNkMov7 VOG6I8I9OVLIhn7AHZgtASwvvWGlpJSK/y3RQ=
Received: by with SMTP id so2mr536340bkb.129.1310033652953; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 03:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t9sm8380478bkn.20.2011. (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 07 Jul 2011 03:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E158722.60101@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 13:14:58 +0300
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru; rv: Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Apps-discuss list <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [apps-discuss] 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 10:14:15 -0000


RFC 734 specifies the SUPDUP protocol.  However, currently, RFC 734 is 
moved to Historic.  And, when moving it to Historic, a number of RFCs 
related to SUPDUP weren't.   They include RFC 736, 749, which are 
Standards Track (PSs), and 746 and 747, which are Unknown.  The first 
two are PSs and depend on Historic RFC, which I personally think it is 
inappropriate.  Therefore I'd like to ask whether there could be a 
consensus in moving all SUPDUP-related RFCs to Historic.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev