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

[Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>]

> -----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.

Jim