IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 20 November 2013 17:50 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 D008B1AE0CB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:50:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 KjqvLa8R48by for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:50:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C6021AE0ED for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:50:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.9.215]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rAKHoeo2007400 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:50:43 -0800
Message-ID: <528CF649.5000209@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:50:01 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
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> <528CF4FB.2060505@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <528CF4FB.2060505@isode.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:50:44 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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 17:50:56 -0000

On 11/20/2013 9:44 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> 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.


Why isn't the IETF mailing list archive discussion about the status 
change sufficient as an archival record?

To be consistent, are we also going to need to publish an RFC that 
explains why an RFC should be promoted to full standard?  It's good to 
explain that decision too, isn't it?

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email