[PCN] alternate encodings future.

[David Harrington <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

We've had a number of things go Historic since I've been on IESG.
IIRC, and I may not, we decided docs could be published directly to
Historic.
But I am not a process geek; I hate discussions of whether a doc must go
to Informational and then be declared historic, or simply gets published
as historic right off the bat.
If you say it is historic, then the IESG process geeks can decide whether
it must be published as informational first.
The thing is, the IESG can make that change - without another IETF LC -
and then declare it historic, so it doesn't matter much in my eyes.
However, putting historic into the document header seriously addresses
Adrian's concern that the future of these alternate docs is unclear.

As a contributor, I'm good with a WG decision to go Historic.


Chairs, is that the WG consensus?
We need an answer to this so we can clear Adrian's discuss and get
encoding-comparison into the RFC Editor's Q.
Having an answer before ietf83 is definitely desirable, and earlier is
preferable.

Thanks,
--
David Harrington
Director, Transport Area
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[e-mail]
[phone]





On 3/13/12 12:38 AM, "Steven Blake" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 20:10 -0400, David Harrington wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I hope I parsed your  double negatives appropriately.
>> I was suggesting that having a normative reference to an expired draft
>> could be problematic.
>> 
>> I see that one of the drafts was revised as Historic .
>> Is the WG decision to publish these as Historic or let them disappear?
>> The IESG needs to know.
>
>I thought RFCs were re-categorized as Historic?  I didn't realize that
>an RFC could be published as Historic right off the bat.
>
>I'm initiating a 3-day WGLC to determine whether to publish
>draft-ietf-pcn-psdm-encoding-02.txt and
>draft-ietf-pcn-3-state-encoding-02.txt
>as Informational/Historic RFCs (terminating EOB Thursday 3/15).
>  
>Please send comments to the list ASAP.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>// Steve
>