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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

It's been suggested to me that what I wrote could be misunderstood.
Please see my clarification at the end...
On 23-Jan-22 13:16, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 23-Jan-22 13:03, Greg Skinner wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 21, 2022, at 6:25 AM, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On January 20, 2022 at 7:22:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Brian:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Definitely a good topic for discussion.
>>>
>>> However, I wonder how other RFCs-of-the-time (RFC904, for example)
>>> were reclassified as Historic.  Unfortunately, there's no history
> in
>>> the datatracker, and I couldn't find relevant information in the
>>> archives.  Maybe someone here remembers.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying that if we could do it before we should do it
>>> again...just curious.  Also, that history may provide insight on 
a
>>> general way forward.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Alvaro.
>>
>> I was able to trace the reclassification of RFC904 to Historic from the
> August 1994 BGP/IDRP-IP WG meeting, at which it was decided "to move
> EGP in all forms to a historical status.”
>>
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bgp/b8sUF_O8MvJxk4th1n1oyr0q3Xk/ 
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bgp/b8sUF_O8MvJxk4th1n1oyr0q3Xk/>
>>
>> A Last-Call was issued a couple of weeks later:
>>
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/47X9CUDKjDEEV8qiBCj_uO_jqmY/
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/47X9CUDKjDEEV8qiBCj_uO_jqmY/>
>>
>> The Protocol Action to move it to Historic took place about three weeks
> later:
>>
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ztXGVqhjtjverb49xo6xVUPEnI8/
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ztXGVqhjtjverb49xo6xVUPEnI8/>
> 
> Thanks for the archaeology.
> 
>> In response to Brian’s suggestion that the RFC Editor function 
should be responsible for reclassifying the status of non-IETF RFCs, perhaps, but what happens if the IETF winds up having to do the work anyway?
> 
> It will always need to be a community decision. For documents that somehow infringe on IETF territory, the IETF needs to be involved, of course. 
But that doesn't mean that the IETF can decide alone about non-IETF documents.
> 
> (The current concept of RFC streams didn't exist in 1994, and neither did
> the clear separation of the RFC Editor function from the IETF, so the situation was entirely different.)

Formally, the separation existed, and there's no doubt that Jon Postel
and Joyce Reynolds took independent decisions about RFC status etc.
However, they were personally involved in IETF discussions and
certainly would have understood immediately that deprecating EGP was
the right thing to do. Today, we can't assume that RFC Editor staff
are closely involved in technical discussions. That makes things
different.

Regards
     Brian