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 17:26 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 907341AE4D4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:26:03 -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 bJPsuA4CP9jJ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:26:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 697961AE4D6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:26:02 -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 rAKHPmOJ006965 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:25:51 -0800
Message-ID: <528CF075.9000204@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:25:09 -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: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
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>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVBb9FVtmjK4X5hCQpMorHnjmyJLU1sYbNh==iBh8SqztQ@mail.gmail.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 09:25:51 -0800 (PST)
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 17:26:03 -0000

On 11/20/2013 9:13 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>    it should be done with a document that explains the
> deployment situation and explains why the reclassification is
> appropriate despite that.
...
> John has a reasonable point about writing up an explanation, and we
> have had volunteers to do so.


The IETF has some history moving documents to Historic status.  I have 
not noticed that it has a track record of requiring documents to explain 
the actions for these earlier examples.

If indeed we've been doing it, what are these precedents?  If we 
haven't, why start now?

What is the compelling community requirement that demands this 
significant bit of extra work be imposed as a barrier to change in status?

Extra work needs to have compelling extra benefit.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email