Re: [Idr] RFC911 to Historic

[Greg Skinner <[e-mail]>]

Sue,

If you take a look at the November 2021 archives of the internet-history list <https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2021-November/thread.html>, you will see some threads on the subject of '“The First Router" on Jeopardy’.  The initial post sparked discussions of when and how “router” entered the Internet (technology) vernacular.  I knew of one BSD Unix router implementation called egpup, but was surprised there was very little documentation about it, so I did a little bit of research <https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2021-November/007719.html>, and came up with an ISI report about it which includes RFC911.  I have submitted status change requests for other RFCs from that era, which were accepted, so I thought I would make a similar request, given the interest expressed by the internet-history list participants.

There was an IESG last-call about the request.  They decided not to move forward.  I’m happy to abide by their decision.

Greg

> On Mar 26, 2022, at 6:39 AM, Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Greg: 
>  
> I serve as both an IDR chair and a member of the Independent Streams Editor board.    As part of the ISE editor board, this question is resurfacing to me.   So in that role, can you tell me a little bit about why you requested RFC911 being placed in historic status?  RFC904 is the protocol specification.  RFC911 is an implementation report on RFC904.    
>  
> What is the need driving this request?   
>  
> Sue 
>  
>  
>  
> From: Greg Skinner [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2022 1:19 AM
> To: Susan Hares
> Cc: Alvaro Retana; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Idr] RFC911 to Historic
>  
> How would all of you feel about bundling this request along with other related requests and/or actions to change the status of RFCs, as was discussed at IETF 30 <https://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/ietf-online-proceedings/94jul/area.and.wg.reports/rtg/idr/idr-minutes-94jul.txt>?  Could this also be done in conjunction with an IDR working group milestone such as progressing RFC4271 as an Internet Standard?  Based on what has been discussed on the Last Call for this request so far, bundling status changes in conjunction with significant working group tasks seems to be more acceptable.
>  
> Greg
> 
> 
> On Jan 25, 2022, at 9:26 AM, Susan Hares <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>  
> Alvaro: 
> 
> This is a detail that IDR should have  taken care of years ago. 
> 
> Sue 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 10:30 AM
> To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; Greg Skinner
> Subject: [Idr] RFC911 to Historic
> 
> Dear idr WG:
> 
> 
> Greg Skinner (cc'd) approached us with the suggestion to reclassify
> rfc911 as Historic.  Here's the justification:
> 
> =====
>   RFC 911 [RFC911] describes an implementation of the Exterior Gateway
>   Protocol (EGP) [RFC904] for 4.2 BSD Unix.  It also provides examples of
>   its use at the time of its publication.  RFC 904 is currently classified
>   as Historic. Experience gained with EGP led to the development of the
>   Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) [RFC1105], and eventually to the current
>   BGP version 4 [RFC4271].  Also, the example network topologies given in
>   RFC 911 include IPv4 networks such as “ARPANET 10”, which is now part of
>   private address space [RFC1918], and “UCI-ICS”, which has been reassigned
>   to the Ford Motor Company.
> =====
> 
> 
> The process to reclassify requires an IETF Last Call and balloting by the IESG.
> 
> idr is not explicitly chartered with anything related to EGP, but I
> figured it is the closest we have. :-)
> 
> Does anyone have comments about this action?  I plan to start the IETF
> Last Call on Jan/20 -- you can comment then too.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Alvaro.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>