Re: [dtn] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-09

[Rick Taylor <[e-mail]>]

Thanks both,

You are correct, I haven't helped here. The reality is that I have been 
overthinking this, and actually just "updating" RFC7116 (although 
uncommon) as planned, is a simple way forwards.  There is no intention 
to make RFC7116 "Historic".

Zahed has fed back to me that the IESG has no issue with this approach, 
and if Colin has none, then no further action is required.

Cheers,

Rick

On 09/02/2024 20:01, Colin Perkins wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 9 Feb 2024, at 19:51, Ran Atkinson wrote:
>
>>> On Feb 7, 2024, at 06:46, Rick Taylor <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> The main point of discussion here is about IETF process: obsoleting IRTF
>>> documents by the IETF is considered unusual. Finding a simple way around
>>> this, such as not obsoleting 7116 is an approach we could consider, it's
>>> just a matter of determining a valid reason why the ipn update doesn't
>>> obsolete 7116.
>> Rick,
>>
>> I apologize if this sounds unreasonable, but I really think you are making this process much too complex.
>>
>> First, maybe you open a conversation with the IRTF Chair and describe the situation as you see it.
>> Then ask if the IRTF Chair or IRSG would agree to move that IRTF document to Historic status ?
>>
>> It is possible that someone (might be them or might be you) would need to create a short "IRTF Track" document which explains the background and then changes the status of the applicable documents to “Historic” or whatever is deemed sensible by the IRTF Chair.
> We wrote https://www.irtf.org/policies/cross-stream-updates.html the last time a similar issue came up. Does it address your concern? (The "other stream manager" would be the IETF Chair, if this is an IETF document)
>
> Colin
>
>