draft-yevstifeyev-genarea-historic-02
Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Wed, 02 February 2011 10:48 UTC
Return-Path: <evnikita2@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0CEE3A6CB6 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 02:48:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.237
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.237 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.599, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cF6djS3xyy9D for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 02:48:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B99A63A6BB0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 02:48:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by fxm9 with SMTP id 9so8566989fxm.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 02:51:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:content-type; bh=RU11GXUl/3TD28YVc7yjzkbAdXHabePUdaaXBeQwh2Q=; b=LlqFKpvlBlzx59GYMybXnNvUxymxd7pLZIfiHma5IxHnZGlb/12oepRSHd8dPQprRG HefOCoea20L6rJu3bHhhOqg9hPLML7jLVz7xBTYS3+1yb/ZIhDMYhDwmZmtoc80Np67/ fPJLUwOrAGVUV9OQaF5yCn2xQ91sFiPhgJV9s=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type; b=VHV6kieP5y3grEqYkdy9HwroojlYbQOmkAGJX/oeSjeGt0lxWXRLZoqJg9D+hqaJkG u//Xswn7D+w19/8h1Jh1uSdUWnEnpH1mc8EZGD1qQHKuU/HwubHQlxMR9WX1bdCRHyrN /V3SwniArI7znXsnwbxCyffyV7Q8OHogKPz7M=
Received: by 10.223.73.206 with SMTP id r14mr8607559faj.126.1296643915526; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 02:51:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n2sm8262387fam.4.2011.02.02.02.51.54 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 02 Feb 2011 02:51:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D493762.7060900@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 12:52:18 +0200
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Subject: draft-yevstifeyev-genarea-historic-02
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000106000001040502040700"
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 02 Feb 2011 10:48:37 -0000
Hello folks, A new version of draft-yevstifeyev-genarea-historic is now available and can be found here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yevstifeyev-genarea-historic-02 This version is believed to address a number of issues mentioned while discussion. Among other: * Added the reason for historicizing document - it is deprecated; and mentioned criteria for such 'status'. See Section 2.1; * Clarified the criterion for obsolete documents. * Deleted the regulation that Standards Track RFCs may move its predecessor to Historic only if it has reached the same status as that doc. * Clarified the procedures for historicizing Experimental RFCs. * Added the regulation for IANA considerations in Historic document. There are also a number of questions to discuss; they are: * Whether historicizing Informational RFCs should be allowed? * Whether publication of separate Historic RFCs should be allowed? (e.g. RFC 6037) * Whether procedures for historicizing Experimental RFCs in the current version are acceptable? * What are other considerations for Historic docs. that should also be discussed? Any comments are then welcome. Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- draft-yevstifeyev-genarea-historic-02 Mykyta Yevstifeyev