IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: Moving RFC911 to Historic

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Fri, 21 January 2022 18:25 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 66F9D3A0853; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 10:25:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.614
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.614 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.714, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 9l74QzPCKqAZ; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 10:25:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [46.182.8.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 563213A0841; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 10:25:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from crumpet.local (admin.ibn.ie [46.182.8.8]) by mail.netability.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB0C29CE80; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 18:25:16 +0000 (GMT)
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, Last Call <last-call@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <164271803816.5455.7128644306829727169@ietfa.amsl.com> <69AE07DD-FCBD-471A-886A-57283504E42C@eggert.org> <CAMMESsxqtU6_eESoO353_bAa_k3Z69erA6744_ixDPYRaBCgmA@mail.gmail.com> <74B3331408B367B0FBB9A50E@PSB> <383635E3-E682-496A-AF10-8C9683445C94@akamai.com> <76ABA366533E237CC4E219FD@PSB> <C1F96261-C284-4785-AAED-7A50336C7E20@vpnc.org> <e2bcc243-a85d-83ef-a328-5c6feb5d20dc@foobar.org> <CAF4+nEFbVwTcX1oQnNag=u7pRZqwdzHMy6FPN24ZHjxGrusf2w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <e1521ec2-8b0d-f4b1-bf1c-e61539de5d81@foobar.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 18:25:14 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.54
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEFbVwTcX1oQnNag=u7pRZqwdzHMy6FPN24ZHjxGrusf2w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/ZZCjL-Pxm1DtIl9YDk8wOzBuUE4>
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 <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 18:25:23 -0000

Donald Eastlake wrote on 21/01/2022 17:34:
> Why isn't the obsoleting of RFCs by later versions and the occasional
> declaration of an RFC as Historic sufficient pruning?

if there are documents in the rfc library which are defunct, but neither 
obsoleted nor declared historical, then there is an argument to say that 
there's insufficient pruning.  Eyeballing rfc-index, there seems to be 
quite a number of documents of this form.

Nick

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status