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

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

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