Re: Last Call: Change the status of ADSP (RFC 5617) to Historic

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Wed, 20 November 2013 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
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 DC4921AE096 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:44:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.471
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.471 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
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 2t0AsNfs9Q3X for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:44:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (cl-125.lon-03.gb.sixxs.net [IPv6:2a00:14f0:e000:7c::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 438E11ADFF9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:44:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1384969467; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=8BgUKpyGsOKpLaIgvVYVWenqMQMstD9eyDQfKA3uG/I=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=N6WGSrRSwsrLwhg3meuHzkRCcpAS2htXpngliX0+PBLM8EQACFyvEOhk7JYYyYhgsyfA7y 4p9k6YzRxBlBWG24DZKRXoAWwCXUpBPHpniLL5A3nou/iIyo/Xa4WxEXvN+16dY3fxCoAw FX0ceaykRvSWccyZMPcGT0I464qdr+Q=;
Received: from [172.16.1.29] (richard.isode.com [62.3.217.249]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <Uoz09wAaoi93@waldorf.isode.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:44:26 +0000
Message-ID: <528CF4FB.2060505@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:44:27 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: Last Call: Change the status of ADSP (RFC 5617) to Historic
References: <20131002145238.78084.qmail@joyce.lan> <524D846A.6030905@tana.it> <CAC4RtVBb9FVtmjK4X5hCQpMorHnjmyJLU1sYbNh==iBh8SqztQ@mail.gmail.com> <528CF075.9000204@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <528CF075.9000204@dcrocker.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
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: <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, 20 Nov 2013 17:44:37 -0000

On 20/11/2013 17:25, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 11/20/2013 9:13 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>    it should be done with a document that explains the
>> deployment situation and explains why the reclassification is
>> appropriate despite that.
> ...
>> John has a reasonable point about writing up an explanation, and we
>> have had volunteers to do so.
>
> The IETF has some history moving documents to Historic status.  I have 
> not noticed that it has a track record of requiring documents to 
> explain the actions for these earlier examples.
>
> If indeed we've been doing it, what are these precedents?
Yes, we do. For example RFC 6196. I only wanted to update IANA registry. 
I got push back without an RFC.
> If we haven't, why start now?
>
> What is the compelling community requirement that demands this 
> significant bit of extra work be imposed as a barrier to change in 
> status?
I think explaining decisions which might not be obvious to a person who 
was not around when the decision was made is a good thing. But yes, this 
is extra work.

> Extra work needs to have compelling extra benefit.