IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: The RFC 20 rationale (was: Re: Last Call: Recognising RFC1984 as a BCP)

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Wed, 12 August 2015 13:36 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20BFF1B2DD5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 06:36:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 QLKImzq2svFD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 06:36:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2::117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 104821B2DC7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 06:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id D15877C5436 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 15:34:20 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c62OgeqnuNSa for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 15:34:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:27:71e7:a24f:297e:e2c3] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:27:71e7:a24f:297e:e2c3]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CAFD57C5435 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 15:34:19 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <55CB4B5B.80700@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 15:34:19 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: The RFC 20 rationale (was: Re: Last Call: Recognising RFC1984 as a BCP)
References: <804F5831283A73947BF64B10@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <55CB3B95.9030203@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <55CB3B95.9030203@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/94clV9bMc9udonCenVUz1b-Ko4k>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:36:14 -0000

Den 12. aug. 2015 14:27, skrev Stephen Farrell:

> As far as I know there aren't any other status changes that
> provide us with useful precedent here, but I could be wrong
> on that.

These go the other way (from Proposed to Historic), but we have some
transitions that were managed by publishing RFCs:

3638 Applicability Statement for Reclassification of RFC 1643 to
     Historic Status

4223 Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic.

5125 Reclassification of RFC 3525 to Historic.

7142 Reclassification of RFC 1142 to Historic.

And the following RFC that did a whole slew of reclassifications:

4450 Getting Rid of the Cruft: Report from an Experiment in
     Identifying and Reclassifying Obsolete Standards Documents.

The pattern here, which may or may not be something we want to emulate,
is that when we make a decision, we publish a document saying why.

RFC numbers are cheap. (The debate required to agree on the text may not
be.)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email