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

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Thu, 07 July 2011 11:12 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 CB99621F8793 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 04:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.528
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.528 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.071, 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 BG+UWMKJ7cJb for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 04:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0537A21F878F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 04:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwb17 with SMTP id 17so897776bwb.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 04:12:05 -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=xN6wGmZOfWPZ1Mr1jmWpupl52D+7lfSDo+cklkHYnFU=; b=ba+qOpM4UgRvOowsmweGI4KJbAhzyVxZrSgzoekjEhcht+TpNcXjOAggGRHdEHcTRD GosvtDpaIs4sRLShZya8X2cq7mSO9CjtRgMJQ93+5snSZdtEjXhg9+KGxGijumX4Jtc1 H/Z364c4PFpTRa2AIGf+Kjn5uF/BK+TRveDWY=
Received: by 10.204.7.134 with SMTP id d6mr537794bkd.206.1310037125580; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 04:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id lb15sm2273520bkb.1.2011.07.07.04.12.04 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 07 Jul 2011 04:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E1594B2.9060409@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 14:12:50 +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>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110707031904.04dcc150@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 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 11:12:07 -0000

07.07.2011 13:29, SM wrote:
> 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?
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.

Moreover, RFC 4450 was a result to suit the requirement of RFC 2026 for 
annual review of PSs, which will be eliminated by 
RFC-housley-two-maturity-levels.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>