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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 21 November 2013 08:49 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 5E28A1A1F7E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:49:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 KFY_vZyHzf6L for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:49:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x22e.google.com (mail-we0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2A891A1F65 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:49:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f174.google.com with SMTP id q58so4611874wes.33 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:49:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=/Wo87GcUiNz77pjZxIemINsTlYkMIZKkQ+4z30+qoik=; b=X7jyAN47UGd5QocFvv+1/RGldMU23/2Pl0vpJ/YHysW1lxOUN0Qh98tdAFt1anSXZg VhPAZfoxH4T5vRnN/2ZBPwLlSNiqQav2ns3250kMchEeC+vtPMHrJMPQ+193Ra1eh9Ra MQLONW7geFDktS/BImW5t+Mr1KA0yWhuBw26g58kGWyRyc1k5xzHOj5Qv3icAwkjbBNN hU+vyb52GfX8nGLXiKr9k/8yjsK0oQGdi39Wgor5ks2M5IcI/gUhudvTzrJv9Mt9CnB1 xW/vfwyo3jOea2YEwIEtrvfYxzH/Ugaq33S7NQcY3ISCVl+lMwrbcV90pddxGIeeuKyN zUtw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.188.164 with SMTP id gb4mr28867585wic.52.1385023780769; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:49:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.181.13.230 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:49:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJhETrpdgO1mt-9YHY1NJ=Ykg++9V-03GwggtdQUN4PXA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20131002145238.78084.qmail@joyce.lan> <524D846A.6030905@tana.it> <CAC4RtVBb9FVtmjK4X5hCQpMorHnjmyJLU1sYbNh==iBh8SqztQ@mail.gmail.com> <528CF075.9000204@dcrocker.net> <528CFCBC.30200@cisco.com> <CALaySJ+E=84jTJxfP7dGx=kVHN1DE1b3TyYhRA3454Z0oK+J-w@mail.gmail.com> <528D0CD9.5010300@cisco.com> <9FC35D4E-4A7D-4682-8C94-9FBC31E09A96@harvard.edu> <528D3DB9.1090301@dcrocker.net> <CALaySJJhETrpdgO1mt-9YHY1NJ=Ykg++9V-03GwggtdQUN4PXA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:49:40 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYRXNUMtovSpkVOZ_k6AfBROK_MT8Y=PF5C2GzjfaKqyg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: Change the status of ADSP (RFC 5617) to Historic
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c25c9e7553a404ebabfaee"
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.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: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:49:50 -0000

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>wrote:

> 1. If RFC 9999 were to "obsolete" RFC 5617 and declare it Historic,
> someone looking at the datatracker page for RFC 5617 would see (1)
> that it's Historic and (2) that RFC 9999 obsoletes it.  They would,
> therefore, know to look at RFC 9999 to understand what happened.
>

If the IESG decides it wants an RFC, I'll volunteer to do the editing if
nobody else wants to do it, unless John (or others) see me as part of some
kind of pro-DKIM cabal that's giving him the willies and we'd rather
someone else do it.  It's almost no work since the text is basically
already laid out.  Or maybe this would be a good opportunity for a relative
neophyte to IETF process to learn how something gets published; I'll
happily shepherd.

2. But if we just process this status change as currently proposed,
> someone looking at the datatracker page for RFC 5617 would see (1)
> that it's Historic and (2) that status-change-adsp-rfc5617-to-historic
> made that status change.  They would, therefore, know to look at
> status-change-adsp-rfc5617-to-historic to understand what happened
> (and there's a convenient, clickable link).
>

If you want another example, look at RFC 6376:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6376/
> ...and see how the status change document that made it Internet
> Standard is clearly linked at the top of the page.  See how that
> document contains the explanation for the action.
>

That's true, but there are other sources of RFCs that don't contain such
information, such as http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6376.txt and I think the
one at rfc-editor.org.  Someone grabbing the RFC from such sources (which
could easily be seen as official) would not be aware of the status change
or the reason for it.

-MSK