Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic
maria@xedia.com (Maria Greene) Thu, 30 July 1998 21:31 UTC
Delivery-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 17:31:43 -0400
Return-Path: owner-ups-mib@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from cnri.reston.va.us (ns [132.151.1.1]) by ietf.org (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id RAA06801 for <ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 17:31:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU (CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.94.1]) by cnri.reston.va.us (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id RAA25346 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 17:31:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (root@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id RAA15274; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 17:25:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from relay3.UU.NET (relay3.UU.NET [192.48.96.8]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id RAA15266; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 17:25:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from xedia.com by relay3.UU.NET with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: madway.xedia.com [198.202.232.199]) id QQfahx20352; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 17:25:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (espanola) by xedia.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA20322; Thu, 30 Jul 98 17:25:08 EDT
Received: by (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA23476; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 17:25:14 -0400
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 17:25:14 -0400
From: maria@xedia.com
Message-Id: <9807302125.AA23476@>
To: Bert Wijnen <WIJNEN@VNET.IBM.COM>
Cc: ups-mib@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic
References: <9807302121.AA20275@xedia.com>
Bert, you are quite right. Would "Informational" status relieve people's concerns? If not, please speak up. Maria >>>>> "Bert" == Bert Wijnen <WIJNEN@VNET.IBM.COM> writes: Bert> Ref: Your note of Thu, 30 Jul 1998 15:41:03 -0400 Subject: Bert> Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic Bert> Maria writes: >> Thanks, Bob and Harald, for explaining the procedure. Yes, >> there is work to do if we want the RFC to advance and my sense >> is that there's noone willing to help with it. Correct me if >> I'm wrong by volunteering. A change to Historic will not make >> the MIB less useful (or make any referencing documents less >> correct) and I doubt many customers check the standards process >> status when evaluating products. >> Bert> Historic may give the impression it is NOT used or no longer Bert> used. Maybe we can move it to "INFORMATIONAL". We do not Bert> have a category of "good enough"... and as far as I can tell Bert> INFORMATIONAL comes closest to "good enough". Bert> When moving to HISTORIC you need do nothing. When moving to Bert> INFORMATIONAL, you may have to add things like security Bert> section and such. Bert> Bert
- Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic Maria Greene
- Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic DRademac
- Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic C. Adam Stolinski
- Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic C. Adam Stolinski
- Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic Bob Stewart
- Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic Maria Greene
- Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic Bob Stewart
- Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic Maria Greene
- Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic Bert Wijnen
- Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic case
- Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic C. Adam Stolinski