Re: [newtrk] Last Call comments on draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment-01.txt

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

Thanks!

WG Chair, do you want me to put this on the IESG agenda when
it comes out? (We'll have a very heavy agenda on December 1,
so I would probably wait for the December 15 meeting.)

    Brian

Eliot Lear wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> I have submitted draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment-02.txt for 
> publication with the five RFCs removed, a comment added regarding them, 
> and the text that Harald provided for IANA considerations.
> 
> Eliot
> 
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>> AD hat on.
>>
>> Since none of these were copied to the WG, here is
>> a compilation of the Last Call comments, including responses
>> to IANA's question.
>>
>> I request the authors and WG to reach consensus on
>>
>> 1. whether to remove the 5 RFCs mentioned by Orly from the list
>> (note his second message at the end that only mentions two of them).
>>
>> 2. how to respond to IANA
>>
>> If some RFCs are removed, I would like to see a revised I-D,
>> since it would be very confusing to have them removed during
>> the editorial process.
>>
>>    Brian
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [newtrk] Last Call: 'Getting rid of the cruft: an 
>> experiment to    identify obsolete standards document' to 
>> Informational RFC
>> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:35:25 -0500
>> From: Spencer Dawkins <[e-mail]>
>> To: <[e-mail]>
>> References: <[e-mail]>
>>
>> I support this action, FWIW...
>>
>> Spencer
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: FW: FW: Last Call: 'Getting rid of the cruft: an experiment 
>> to    identify obsolete standards document' to Informational RFC
>> Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 23:26:27 +0200
>> From: Orly Nicklass <[e-mail]>
>> To: <[e-mail]>
>>
>>
>> - 1381, 1382:
>> - 1471, 1472, 1473:
>> are still in active use by some of our products.
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: RE: Last Call: 'Getting rid of the cruft: an experiment to 
>> identify    obsolete standards document' to Informational RFC 
>> [I06-051024-0011]
>> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:44:53 -0700
>> From: [e-mail]
>> Reply-To: [e-mail]
>> To: [e-mail]
>> CC: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
>>
>>
>> IESG:
>>
>> The IANA has reviewed the following Internet-Draft which is in Last
>> Call:  draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment-01.txt,  and has the 
>> following
>> with regards to the publication of this document:
>>
>> Upon approval of this document the IANA will review all the IANA 
>> registries and update the references to be this document for the all 
>> documents described in section 3.  Should all the actual assignments 
>> also be marked as OBSOLETE or should the reference only be changed?
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Michelle Cotton
>> (on behalf of IANA)
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Getting rid of the cruft: an experiment to 
>> identify obsolete standards document' to Informational RFC 
>> [I06-051024-0011]
>> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:27:50 +0200
>> From: Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>
>> To: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
>> CC: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
>> References: <[e-mail]> 
>> <[e-mail]>
>>
>> Michelle,
>>
>> My recommendation would be to simply add the notation "Historic" to the
>> reference.  Or if you like,  Historic, see RFCs (original, cruft).  Just
>> because these documents are marked HISTORIC doesn't mean someone out
>> there isn't using them.  We don't make that claim and there's no need to
>> cause those people grief.
>>
>> There is potentially a separate effort that should be undertaken to
>> attempt to clean up some of the IANA databases.  For example, I'm pretty
>> sure that HEMS implementations never got out of labs.  And SGMP is 
>> listed.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: RE: Last Call: 'Getting rid of the cruft: an experiment to 
>> identify    obsolete standards document' to Informational RFC 
>> [I06-051024-0011]
>> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 05:38:09 -0400 (EDT)
>> From: [e-mail] (Scott Bradner)
>> To: [e-mail]
>> CC: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
>>
>>
>> I hnk that the references should be changed and that is all that
>> should happen - I do not think teh status of the assignments should
>> change
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: RE: Last Call: 'Getting rid of the cruft: an experiment to 
>> identify obsolete standards document' to Informational RFC 
>> [I06-051024-0011]
>> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 05:44:05 -0700
>> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[e-mail]>
>> To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
>> CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]
>> References: <[e-mail]>
>>
>> My immediate thought would be that IANA should not change the 
>> references in
>> the registries at all - the correct interpretation of the values in the
>> registries is still the defining RFC, not the one that declares them
>> Historical.
>>
>> I believe the port number registry, for instance, has many references to
>> documents that are not standards-track RFCs already.
>>
>> If you want to add annotations saying "Historical" to such references,
>> that's reasonable, but then you should also add "Informational",
>> "Experimental" or "Standards-track" to the other references in the
>> registries - and as far as I know, there's no such marking now.
>>
>> Don't make work you don't have to.....
>>
>>                               Harald
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: RE: Last Call: 'Getting rid of the cruft: an experiment to 
>> identify    obsolete standards document' to Informational RFC 
>> [I06-051024-0011]
>> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:12:29 -0400 (EDT)
>> From: [e-mail] (Scott Bradner)
>> To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
>> CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]
>>
>>  > the registries at all - the correct interpretation of the values in 
>> the=20
>>  > registries is still the defining RFC, not the one that declares 
>> them=20
>>  > Historical.
>>
>> good point
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: FW: [newtrk] I-D 
>> ACTION:draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment-00.txt
>> Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:43:46 +0200
>> From: Orly Nicklass <[e-mail]>
>> To: <[e-mail]>
>>
>> - RFC1471 - RFC1473 - are used by our products
>>
>> (end of Last Call comments)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> .
>> newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
>> web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
>> mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html
>>
> 

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html