IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00.txt> (Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110, RFC1145, RFC1146, RFC1263, RFC1379, RFC1644 and RFC1693 to Historic Status) to Informational RFC

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Thu, 03 February 2011 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <evnikita2@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 409353A69A7 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 06:59:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.217
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.217 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.578, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uimRD+-uGtWL for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 06:59:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 065663A69A0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 06:59:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by fxm9 with SMTP id 9so1362259fxm.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Feb 2011 07:03:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=yywQBcku1k2gdBGY3Xa+4Z7ePVY+qjWKaTipDdFLkw0=; b=opczWZkkI7IKjo0bec54Ddy1P1EvKO9z3XL50TJUmODEQC6gn7SsTskgjmQ3nH1u79 Mm7MboVjuXzSzCpMOgvhMW5aBUlGI6vrKAKeMRXDaWlW9pEb6eIbK3RAyenNW2HWivDG oYi45XGYkvOC7wh3Z4oJZrB2sYDXKMSZrVxCM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=dlsmyZlGLUe/EasTVdhKdsWF9El484GHoXU8SpE4IgZy8z8E59Hxhu5D4VkhAxVIaD ActdpGE7ofKzPlvWvXpYblbrR9ZI2L7LlkOZLgwlTQRx4hknDgFokVJm1WCdKRbeokky mEQ6WLaEOPf8jT12lBUOEK19YTMH5eLTOeQCU=
Received: by 10.223.81.76 with SMTP id w12mr2795439fak.26.1296745389993; Thu, 03 Feb 2011 07:03:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n7sm318631fam.11.2011.02.03.07.03.08 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 03 Feb 2011 07:03:08 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D4AC3C3.5020003@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:03:31 +0200
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00.txt> (Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110, RFC1145, RFC1146, RFC1263, RFC1379, RFC1644 and RFC1693 to Historic Status) to Informational RFC
References: <20110202215157.24554.29312.idtracker@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20110202215157.24554.29312.idtracker@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 03 Feb 2011 14:59:49 -0000

Hello all,

While I fully agree with what this document proposes.  This might be an 
editorial comment but I 've noticed that RFC 1072 is not mentioned to be 
made Historic despite the option specified by it is made obsolete.  What 
is more, referencing all the documents made obsolete normatively is OK?  
Here I suggest only RFC 4614 to be mentioned in this way.

However I'd like to raise some questions not directly connected to this 
document.  I wonder why those who said a few weeks ago that 
historicizing some documents in the similar situation is not appropriate 
do not object now.  The arguments of these folks were that RFC 2026 sets 
the criteria for Historic status as 'replaced by other doc' and did not 
consider 'being deprecated' (what exactly we have in the current case) 
as weighty reason for historicizing document.

Moreover, there are no clear procedures for moving documents to 
Historic.  So everybody who wants to propose to move some RFC to 
Historic must think out what procedures should be used or find them out 
in the most recent documents.

Up to this day there are neither any clear definition of Historic RFC 
status nor procedures for historicizing RFCs.  Should this continue?

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

02.02.2011 23:51, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from the TCP Maintenance and Minor
> Extensions WG (tcpm) to consider the following document:
> - 'Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110,
>     RFC1145, RFC1146, RFC1263, RFC1379, RFC1644 and RFC1693 to Historic
>     Status'
>    <draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00.txt>  as an Informational RFC
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-02-16. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize/
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize/
>
>
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> IETF-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email