Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-davies-int-historic-04.txt> (Deprecating infrastructure "int" domains) to Informational RFC

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

Pure procedural fussiness, but I'm that sort of person:

Informational documents do not "mark" or "move" other documents to 
"Historic". They request the status change. I'm also not entirely sure 
what "marking a domain name as historic" might mean. Here are some 
strictly editorial changes to clarify:

In Abstract:

OLD

    The document marks as historic any "int" domain names that were
    designated for infrastructure purposes, and identifies them for
    removal from the "int" top-level domain.  Any implementation that
    involves these domains should be considered deprecated.  This
    document also marks RFC 1528 and RFC 1706 as historic.

NEW

    The document deprecates the use of any "int" domain names that were
    designated for infrastructure purposes, and identifies them for
    removal from the "int" top-level domain.  Any implementation that
    involves these domains should be considered deprecated.  This
    document also requests moving the status of RFC 1528 and RFC 1706 to
    historic.

In Section 1:

OLD

    The documented uses of infrastructural identifiers in the "int"
    domain were largely experimental and in practice obsolete.  This
    document formalizes moving the related specifications to historic
    status, along with removing any associated delegations from the 
"int"
    zone in the domain name system.

NEW

    The documented uses of infrastructural identifiers in the "int"
    domain were largely experimental and in practice obsolete.  This
    document requests moving the related specifications to historic
    status, along with removing any associated delegations from the 
"int"
    zone in the domain name system.

(I haven't addressed George's comment to add "by the IETF" or the 
David's comment to add additional RFCs to the Historic list.)

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best

On 19 Oct 2022, at 15:19, The IESG wrote:

> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to 
> consider the
> following document: - 'Deprecating infrastructure "int" domains'
>   <draft-davies-int-historic-04.txt> as 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
> [e-mail] mailing lists by 2022-11-23. Exceptionally, 
> comments may
> be sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the 
> beginning
> of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>
>    The document marks as historic any "int" domain names that were
>    designated for infrastructure purposes, and identifies them for
>    removal from the "int" top-level domain.  Any implementation that
>    involves these domains should be considered deprecated.  This
>    document also marks RFC 1528 and RFC 1706 as historic.
>
>
>
>
> The file can be obtained via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-davies-int-historic/
>
> Please also see: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-int-tlds-to-historic/ 
> (the associated "status change" document)
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.