Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <status-change-int-tlds-to-historic-00.txt> (Moving TCP.INT and NSAP.INT infrastructure domains to historic)

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 7:46 AM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> I do not think this last call is well-formed.  There is no link to the
> document and it is not available via the datatracker.  It's difficult to
> see how the community can successfully give advice on a matter with no
> document (and not even an abstract).
>
> May I ask that the IESG consider re-issuing this last call with the
> appropriate pointers?
>

This is probably my fault - we don't do very many status-changes, and
figuring out how to drive the datatracker for this is hard — the DT usually
sucks in the Abstract automatically and populates the Last Call text, but
because a status-change document isn't *really* a document it didn't seem
to do so…

With that said, this is **just** the Status-Change document, and there is a
link to:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-int-tlds-to-historic/

This notes that this document is the status-change (as suggested by
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/designating-rfcs-historic-2014-07-20/
and
will be replaced when the "actual" document is published):
"At some point, it is sent to an appropriate AD to request publication. The
AD creates a status-change document, with an explanation that points to the
I-D. The I-D and the status-change are then last-called together, after
which the IESG evaluates and ballots on both."

The **actual** document (which is also in Last Call) is
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-davies-int-historic/

So, this just notes that draft-davies-int-historic
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-davies-int-historic/> is making
some documents historic, and that you should read that. This whole change
process is somewhat baroque, especially if there is a draft doing it —
someone writes a draft, it gets last-called, and you *also* have a
status-change document which also gets last-called, and then the
status-change document disappears in a poof of smoke and the ID replaces it
when it becomes an RFC….

Anyway, I'll try abort this LC, and restart it with 1: TCP fixed to TPC
(assuming that I can stop my fingers from autocorrecting it) and 2: the
status-change text (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-int-tlds-to-historic/)
copied into the Abstract / LC text…

Wheee, are we having process fun yet? :-P
W

> thanks,
>
> Ted Hardie
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 4:08 PM The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> The IESG has received a request from the Internet Engineering Steering
>> Group
>> IETF (iesg) to consider the following document: - 'Moving TCP.INT and
>> NSAP.INT infrastructure domains to historic'
>>   <status-change-int-tlds-to-historic-00.txt>
>>
>> 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 2022-04-26. 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.
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The file can be obtained via
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-int-tlds-to-historic/
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>
>