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

[Tony Hansen <[e-mail]>]

On 8/20/2013 3:01 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 8/15/13 2:06 PM, SM wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> My guess is that draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired cannot update RFC 2026. 
>> Does the IAB have any objection if I do something about that?
>> [...]
>> The document argues that STD 1 is historic as there is an online list
>> now.
>
> The IESG and the IAB had an email exchange about these two points.
> Moving a document from Standard to Historic is really an IETF thing to
> do. And it would be quite simple for the IETF to say, "We are no
> longer asking for the 'Official Protocol Standards' RFC to be
> maintained" by updating (well, effectively removing) the one paragraph
> in 2026 that asks for it, and requesting the move from Standard to
> Historic. So I prepared a *very* short document to do that:
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-resnick-retire-std1/
>
> I'm asking Jari to Last Call it along with a status change for STD 1
> (RFC 5000) to Historic. If the RFC Editor wants to explain more of the
> history and whatever else they're going to do in a separate document,
> that's up to the IAB. But declaring Standards to be Historic is
> something the RFC Editor or IAB shouldn't be doing. The above document
> solves the problem by making it clear that the IETF isn't interested
> in the document being updated anymore.
>
> pr
>

I support this. But it also raises a couple other questions.

What about rfcxx99 series, published along with the rfcxx00 series? Were
they ever formally retired?

After rfcxx00 is retired, can the RFC editor start using both xx99 and
xx00 as normal RFC numbers?

I'm not saying that Pete

    Tony Hansen