Re: [lamps] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis-06: (with COMMENT)

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

> On Jun 20, 2018, at 3:18 PM, Jim Schaad <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 11:49 AM
>> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail]; Russ Housley
>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]
>> Subject: Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis-06:
>> (with COMMENT)
>> 
>> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis-06: No Objection
>> 
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
>> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
>> paragraph, however.)
>> 
>> 
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> 
>> 
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> It seems a bit odd that Appendix B recommends that RFC 2312 be made
>> historic, because that already happened.
>> 
> 
> As I noted in the review from Ben Campbell, I never know what the correct thing to do with this is.  Should it be removed because the action has already occurred which means that a reader of this document might miss the fact or should it be left in place as the operation is really a nop.  I have never heard of a suggested policy around this.

I think this document could note that it has been made historic.

Alissa

> 
> Jim
> 
> 
>