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

SM <sm@resistor.net> Thu, 07 July 2011 10:31 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 2A03121F8792 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 03:31:51 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 s8h47fQ0WwRE for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 03:31:49 -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 C92AE21F8787 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 03:31:48 -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 p67AVb3k026660; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 03:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1310034702; bh=FXLXfqoEi+tyZYn4XNE08bGzNT6p2rEJrI713Q5EFlE=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To: References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=FPgU7/yPH4cjRTFuUsghAZuAJdT8Gkm1dGMVyCC20z6jNbG2/2H4SS6NTyJ5ebVl0 hdE7lsDQupefG4DypOhvabzvabYiyROR8q/8sOu/vUMJ7pe0Pi5FBvYNHuW+Xi2xEO P0uJJbxNmkDySfqc5pcd2240j8NY2/d4oIN1Qd6g=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1310034702; bh=FXLXfqoEi+tyZYn4XNE08bGzNT6p2rEJrI713Q5EFlE=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To: References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=h273f87x06YXmVKxy+SIqWMqb4Cp0VxEJwrVMhA4iBzXobh6+QFlprskyTkqn3wsk nhZ3wKJ2eQ0KaXQF/9Q7DSXNxBDncxcqt03XQrElEtLO68YqQaHbXp8r7Do/a63Z/r +cbdd2l1YbB+cVuE1qXjM8S7v8filqqmpyRBP8hc=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110707031904.04dcc150@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 03:29:57 -0700
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4E158722.60101@gmail.com>
References: <4E158722.60101@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [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 10:31:51 -0000

Hi Mykyta,
At 03:14 07-07-2011, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>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.

According to the datatracker, you currently have three drafts about 
reclassification of RFCs.  As you are putting some effort in moving 
some RFCs to Historic, may I suggest that you use the approach 
documented in RFC 4450?

Regards,
-sm