Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

As far as I can tell, your proposal does not match the meaning we use 
for Historic.
More importantly, there does not seem to be a problem that needs to be 
addressed in this area.
Most importantly, if there is a problem, it should in my opinion be 
addressed separately from the topic of this draft.  Please do not 
conflate the two.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

On 3/24/2011 11:32 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> Russ, all,
>
> Another proposal as for your document. So, it fails to mention what are
> the procedures for reclassification of Standards Track RFCs to Historic.
> Therefore, I propose the following text:
>
>>
>> 6. Procedures for Reclassification of Standards Track RFCs as Historic
>> Documents
>>
>> Under some circumstances Standards Track RFCs may be reclassified to
>> Historic document (i. e. its initial status may be changed to
>> Historic). RFC 2026 [1], as well as its predecessors, contains some
>> words about the Historic RFCs, but it failes to define the procedures
>> for reclassification of RFCs to Historic status. Such situation, of
>> course, causes misunderstandings of the members of the community. This
>> document removes this uncertainty; it defines the circumstances under
>> what the Standards Track RFC should be moved to Historic status and
>> describes the procedures for such action.
>>
>> The Standards Track RFC, either Proposed Standard or Internet
>> Standard, should be considered to be appropriate for reclassification
>> as Historic document if (a) there is another document that replaces it
>> or (b) it described the protocol or other technology that got out-of-use.
>>
>> In the case mentioned as (a) above the superseding document should
>> just have the notice of the necessity of reclassification of its
>> predecessor to Historic. However such action is not obligatory.
>>
>> In the case mentioned as (b) above the procedure is as follows. If the
>> individual or a group of individuals (e. g. IETF working group) assume
>> that the protocol or other technology defined in the Standards Track
>> RFC is now out-of-use and is very unlikely to become widely used in
>> the future, they SHALL apply to IESG to request the reclassification
>> of such document to Historic. IESG SHALL then issue the IETF-wide Last
>> Call on this action, not shorter than 2 weeks, in order to determine
>> whether there is the community consensus on reclassification. If Last
>> Call did not reveal community objection to this action, this document
>> SHALL be reclassified to Historic.
>>
>> During the sunset period, set by this document, Draft Standards SHALL
>> be reclassified to Historic using the procedure as defined above.
> ... and renumber the following sections.
>
> What do you think about this proposal?
>
> Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>
> 14.03.2011 1:32, Russ Housley wrote:
>> There have been conflicting suggestions about the best way forward. We
>> have constructed an updated proposal. It has been posted as
>> draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-04.
>>
>> Russ
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>