Re: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 24 September 2019 11:33 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: dtn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dtn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DFC6120118 for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 04:33:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3grjEXBzCJl5 for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 04:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1D9212004A for <dtn@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 04:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.110] (p548DCE50.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.206.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46czbT498Sz10kQ; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 13:33:41 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <780D35E5-B4CA-4C77-A217-19034BB60EE8@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 13:33:41 +0200
Cc: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, irtf-chair@irtf.org, "dtn@ietf.org" <dtn@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 591017619.371171-b2464d78f5e9d1ecdfd42b72b95c0573
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <66CC5320-E483-4FC9-A610-1D79A899A704@tzi.org>
References: <ecc5ee275929440b8b70d570451219a77dc5a176.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com> <1376435003.14731004.1569226573419@mail.yahoo.com> <7DC9F8DB-00E1-47C6-8F05-93771AEE4B0C@tzi.org> <75A02579-9C5A-4692-86FA-B5B73AF84A2A@csperkins.org> <780D35E5-B4CA-4C77-A217-19034BB60EE8@gmail.com>
To: "R. Atkinson" <rja.lists@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/uf9wYribBgv1nS7N1E4Y6gDQjPs>
Subject: Re: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?
X-BeenThere: dtn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Delay Tolerant Networking \(DTN\) discussion list at the IETF." <dtn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dtn>, <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dtn/>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn>, <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 11:33:46 -0000

On Sep 24, 2019, at 13:18, R. Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>; wrote:
> 
> If the DTN WG chairs believe, after they decide this thread is finished, that there is WG consensus to obsolete RFC-5050, then I’d suggest that the DTN WG chairs ask the IRTF Chair (with CC: to the IESG) to obsolete RFC-5050 while noting the WG consensus to do so.  If that request were made, then I would hope the IRTF Chair then would do so.

Sounds like a good approach to me.

> It is EASY to follow the correct process here.  We need not leave the well trod path and go bushwhacking to create a new path.

Agreed.  

Translating this to a useful process from the point of the WG that creates the obsoleting specification:

— WG agrees that the RFC-to-be should obsolete the experimental RFC; write this into the I-D (“obsoletes” attribute + mention in abstract/introduction)
— confirm the consensus for this in the WGLC
— put out the formal request to the IRTF chair at the time the document is submitted to the IESG (i.e., “leaves the WG”) — as always, an early heads up is probably appreciated, but the IRTF chair’s decision should be based on what actually leaves the WG.

The IESG should probably check before approval that such a process was followed (oh no, another line item in the shepherd’s writeup), but, really, the RFC editor should be the gating point here.

Grüße, Carsten