Re: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On Sep 24, 2019, at 13:18, R. Atkinson <[e-mail]> 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