Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

[Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]>]

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
>