From nobody Thu Jan 20 16:22:17 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 761333A0908 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 16:22:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.812 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.812 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.714, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 LKXf-MzeOQZu for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 16:22:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pg1-x52f.google.com (mail-pg1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49DAF3A08ED for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 16:22:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id f8so6781593pgf.8 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 16:22:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gf7LlRKChKB7tRmf6zqoiX8fXVvIq1GFJiH3tIugiSo=; b=TeRLzn10aKVJV6u5hshDPdAV51KGwUEjZg3WTNj3yh4RwlnqyzbmomIvD0zGxDgeaf P8S85LYQE2tDgbJyxr4Me29Q9V0tbHle4m32dY9oW3r098wVL3hHLxWrOW6htjjBy09d r2h4oLgE4Fg9AhIWr4BuaA0/1hSauhEXfK70RudEC3yjg5VXeV73qpxAfY9GWJQELPSt UMPNkn7wJ6mrJvhpXiqUtvqFpmjuNCn3MtVNc1/XN5X3mInSgIA5/o4R/noEQpyD3+NS FOnD+1FhJvwjZUg+kW25Fzvo3wZTQ5Vm7gChNwQr89Qm4ygdadG8Wi3UMpNuJiyc03F+ Yt1Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gf7LlRKChKB7tRmf6zqoiX8fXVvIq1GFJiH3tIugiSo=; b=QQWuiSFuWPVRmR2gvGqwAN/0QjEkXf3e1qwRNMsiO3gTE7aBX32QQryV87bzKaeEaZ 6XRAfNBuiIuonEEj6EYjpZDY+zcrn5RPabmm8pwn45eE4YCYwH/erpEmVerpSBrVqfHz o+ddQ5SbRG26iG0VwgY72836BsDGX3CEbNJfYB2yWCC1LpMjUSp9ky9LeqTX829W8SbB ZuiCH3LaERu97O3kZRlIiNvrqm8V+Q2dl0h35ofOmnf+QZoOpZ0EKAm7/o8Uxza8q4L1 TnOn34ffX/RcQ2bGMTNrLkG6TJ3No+6kq9ApIDR8QTICuAhj7sTcYHkWEey5tX5jiiyu Av+w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531qahLEPBSy2PMMPw7HM3h3G3SY7rH+38/4niQUcieibdHBNt3h Ttn5MfFVp+htKLq1rJMAMgdZhVDbCxPQMQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJygKMxaNL3iwbLxFPOkH/0exBebHxeVMkphfQiZJn5Y6D/rpBa5ljmIvErIqMIliWWr83aJ6Q== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:a18:b0:4bb:9f3e:94c8 with SMTP id p24-20020a056a000a1800b004bb9f3e94c8mr1472647pfh.67.1642724529789; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 16:22:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e003:1071:1701:80b2:5c79:2266:e431? ([2406:e003:1071:1701:80b2:5c79:2266:e431]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x7sm4734674pfh.178.2022.01.20.16.22.08 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Jan 2022 16:22:09 -0800 (PST) To: last-call@ietf.org References: <164271803816.5455.7128644306829727169@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <6f84cfe1-ae01-f15b-46c1-cb5f6ea562b7@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 13:22:05 +1300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <164271803816.5455.7128644306829727169@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: Moving RFC911 to Historic X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Last Calls List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 00:22:15 -0000 Hi, In my opinion, the IETF, and therefore the IESG, has no right to change the status of this RFC, which is dated 1984, two years before the IETF existed. I believe that the status of many early RFCs should be reviewed, but by the RFC Editor function, not by the IETF. Probably, Historic is the correct status for most of them. However, it isn't an urgent matter as we have managed for the last 35+ years with these RFCs unclassified, and we can certainly wait until the new RFC Editor model is in place. This will provide a proper mechanism to develop policies such as "what to do about the 904 RFCs with status UNKNOWN". Regards Brian Carpenter On 21-Jan-22 11:33, The IESG wrote: > > The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make the > following status changes: > > - RFC911 from Unknown to Historic > (EGP Gateway under Berkeley UNIX 4.2) > > The supporting document for this request can be found here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-rfc911-to-historic/ > > 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 > last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-02-18. 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 affected document can be obtained via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc911/ > > IESG discussion of this request can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-rfc911-to-historic/ballot/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce >