IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Designating Apps Area related RFCs as Historic

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Fri, 08 July 2011 03:18 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 [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FAF321F8802 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 20:18:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.52
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 YbpuTOXqjXEA for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 20:18:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f54.google.com (mail-fx0-f54.google.com [209.85.161.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5C2621F8801 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 20:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxe4 with SMTP id 4so2130592fxe.27 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 20:18:38 -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:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ls5tXHi6Ia0vHe2gO+Id62ESr1fuR/zGuKozLztsxsk=; b=aILvN5XhJJ58nqofVURBii3Bve31R0AOsrd3Bbz0G0IsBBdjZLgUfti8je5d7JCti8 rFoQQTIeKGiuEO2kTp3NQV71ao5ZDVF7nDrTMOl7+G7MLVBp3i2mvlZph4u4co/Lnb46 5mh11/H5OA83DNiT6P8rpFZRf2HmS+xaoT478=
Received: by 10.223.6.198 with SMTP id a6mr2286832faa.128.1310095118844; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 20:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 21sm6959172fay.21.2011.07.07.20.18.37 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 07 Jul 2011 20:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E16773C.8010005@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 06:19:24 +0300
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
References: <4E158722.60101@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110707031904.04dcc150@resistor.net> <4E1594B2.9060409@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110707072837.055b9700@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110707072837.055b9700@resistor.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Designating Apps Area 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: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 03:18:40 -0000

07.07.2011 18:39, SM wrote:
> 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.
While I understand that you encourage me to perform the bulk deprecation 
of Apps-related RFCs, I personally don't think I am technically 
knowledgeable enough to perform such work.  Deciding on deprecating the 
RFC required its careful reading and deep technical understanding of its 
current use and/or its relationships with other RFCs.  My expertise is 
mostly narrowly-skoped, and I am afraid such work will be impossible for me.

When I face some RFC which is obviously obsolete, I propose its 
reclassifying to Historic.  That's what with SUPDUP.  This is an obvious 
omission when historicizing RFC 734.  But I don't think I'll be able to 
propose something worthwhile if I undertake checking up and revising all 
published PSs.

Thanks,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email