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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 07:41 -0700 The IESG
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> The IESG has received a request from an individual participant
> to make the following status changes:
> 
> - RFC5617 from Proposed Standard to Historic
> 
> The supporting document for this request can be found here:
> 
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-adsp-rfc5617-to-
> historic/

Hi.  Just to be sure that everyone has the same understanding of
what is being proposed here, the above says "to Historic" but
the writeup at
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-adsp-rfc5617-to-historic/
says "to Internet Standard".   Can one or the other be corrected?

After reading the description at the link cited above and
assuming that "Historic" is actually intended, I wonder,
procedurally, whether a move to Historic without document other
than in the tracker is an appropriate substitute for the
publication of an Applicability Statement that says "not
recommended" and that explains, at least in the level of detail
of the tracker entry, why using ADSP is a bad idea.  

If there were no implementations and no evidence that anyone
cared about this, my inclination would be to just dispose of RFC
5617 as efficiently and with as little effort as possible.  But,
since the tracker entry says that there are implementations and
that misconfiguration has caused harm (strongly implying that
there has even been deployment), it seems to me that a clear and
affirmative "not recommended" applicability statement is in
order.

thanks,
   john