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

SM <sm@resistor.net> Thu, 15 August 2013 19:15 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55F0521F9A3B; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 12:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.372
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.372 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.227, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q766sThODitZ; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 12:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7BDA21F9017; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 12:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7FJEt50005247; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 12:14:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1376594101; bh=ksZmZyR6PXWKJd5svNlf7n7kpl0EadS0qf3EtiptbHg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=UWyvdMpbUrZcTTJZxKHI4VderIe2QyoUmJXUUL8lAwSTSw4fADsL/Nmx+iDuNjQ3Z JhaixO7lN7SRPy0aJ3j4IHBVdUNP3ufsRBO3SsYD3AWyJCyLg31KjemNkVA5gAbTIx Bb2iQzlXTcfRPCoNSChod/MgKs6AuMcvn0VbIdeE=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1376594101; i=@resistor.net; bh=ksZmZyR6PXWKJd5svNlf7n7kpl0EadS0qf3EtiptbHg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=P/8qA7TmJjuCxIbHvs5BhhUqpSH6tdAK9ruM6JxELwEv642FECMEcGnl1mJFEIbm7 JtWut/zh0WzJ1hZLiozs18r/EPdehlD3YtGBVpqX5W4rQI2fwgFMyqs7V0yQN6HnnJ IhzDjSG9P07IgtPcnO+21MgrJyTWNnYUJIpvo33A=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130815114542.0c4e8780@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 12:06:12 -0700
To: iab@iab.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: Call for Review of draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired, "List of Internet Official Protocol Standards: Replaced by an Online Database"
In-Reply-To: <9F1A328F-12F4-4299-9604-CAA5019005C3@iab.org>
References: <9F1A328F-12F4-4299-9604-CAA5019005C3@iab.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 15 Aug 2013 19:15:02 -0000

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.

The document is available for inspection here: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired/

 From Section 2.1 of RFC 2026:

   'The status of Internet protocol and service specifications is
    summarized periodically in an RFC entitled "Internet Official
    Protocol Standards".'

My guess is that draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired cannot update RFC 
2026.  Does the IAB have any objection if I do something about that?

 From Section 3:

   "This document formally retires STD 1.  Identifier STD 1 will not be
    re-used unless there is a future need to publish periodic snapshots
    of the Standards Track documents (i.e., unless the documentation is
    resumed)."

The document argues that STD 1 is historic as there is an online list 
now.  The above reserves an option to restart periodic snapshots if 
there is a future need.  I suggest removing that option as I presume 
that the IAB has thought carefully about the long term evolution of 
the Series before taking the decision to retire STD 1.

Regards,
-sm