Re: Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, "List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database"

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 14:01 -0500 Pete Resnick
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 8/15/13 2:06 PM, SM wrote:
>> At 11:48 14-08-2013, IAB Chair wrote:
>>> This is a call for review of "List of Internet Official
>>> Protocol  Standards: Replaced by an Online Database" prior
>>> to potential  approval as an IAB stream RFC.
>> 
>> My guess is that draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired cannot update
>> RFC 2026.   Does the IAB have any objection if I do something
>> about that? [...]
>> The document argues that STD 1 is historic as there is an
>> online list now.
> 
> The IESG and the IAB had an email exchange about these two
> points. Moving a document from Standard to Historic is really
> an IETF thing to do. And it would be quite simple for the IETF
> to say, "We are no longer asking for the 'Official Protocol
> Standards' RFC to be maintained" by updating (well,
> effectively removing) the one paragraph in 2026 that asks for
> it, and requesting the move from Standard to Historic. So I
> prepared a *very* short document to do that:
> 
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-resnick-retire-std1/

FWIW, I've reviewed your draft and have three comments:

(1) You are to be complemented on its length and complexity.

(2)  I agree that the core issue belongs to the IETF, and IETF
Stream, issue, not the RFC Editor and/or IAB.

(3) I far prefer this approach to the more complex and
convoluted RFC Editor draft.   If we really need to do something
formally here (about which I still have some small doubts), then
let's make it short, focused, and to the point.  Your draft
appears to accomplish those goals admirably.

   john