Re: [newtrk] a crufty last call

"Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> Wed, 13 October 2004 22:20 UTC

Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (root@darkwing.uoregon.edu [128.223.142.13]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19664 for <newtrk-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:20:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i9DM7Z8e024167; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i9DM7ZkG024163; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pretender.boolean.net (root@router.boolean.net [198.144.206.49]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i9DM7Xg8024124 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NOT) for <newtrk@lists.uoregon.edu>; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gypsy.OpenLDAP.org (kurt@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pretender.boolean.net (8.12.10/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i9DM7VZv048396; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:07:31 GMT (envelope-from Kurt@OpenLDAP.org)
Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.0.20041013144858.03000c90@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender: kurt@127.0.0.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:08:22 -0700
To: sob@harvard.edu
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Subject: Re: [newtrk] a crufty last call
Cc: newtrk@lists.uoregon.edu
In-Reply-To: <20041012172639.284C7DAA95@newdev.harvard.edu>
References: <20041012172639.284C7DAA95@newdev.harvard.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-newtrk@lists.uoregon.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>

Yes.  I believe there is far too much cruft on the
standards track and we find a non-burdensome way
to remove it.  The current practice, publish an
RFC to move RFC(s) to Historic, is simply too
burdensome in the case of cruft.  I think the
approach outlined in the cruft I-D is workable.

Kurt

At 10:26 AM 10/12/2004, scott bradner wrote:

>I'd like to do sort of a last call on the crufty ID
>(draft-ietf-newtrk-cruft-00.txt)
>
>I do not want to last call the document itself instead I'd like to last 
>call the concept of this document
>
>so the specific details of the process proposed in the ID are off-topic 
>but the idea of having a process to perform "the downgrading of old
>standards described in RFC 2026, as well as BCPs, without placing
>an unreasonable load on groups charged with performing other tasks in
>the IETF" is in-scope
>
>consider this question
>        "should this working group develop process(es) with the aims
>        described in the ID draft-ietf-newtrk-cruft-00.txt?"
>
>please answer with "yes" "no" or "maybe"
>
>please give a SHORT explanation of why for an answer of "yes" or "no"
>
>if you answer "maybe" please state why you cannot answer "yes" or "no"
>
>this sort-of-last-call will end in two weeks (Oct 26) at noon ET
>
>if there is no clear consensus (or a consensus for "maybe") we can talk
>about the question during the newtrk session in DC, if there is a clear 
>consensus of "no" we will drop the idea, and if the clear consensus 
>is "yes" we will then discuss the specifics of the proposal.
>
>thanks
>
>Scott
>.
>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