Thanks Warren. What I've been told is "the IETF doesn't mark enough documents Historic to standardize the workflow".
Poor Camel Tim On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 11:06 AM Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi there all, > > To obsolete DLV I was using the Option 2 of the "Designating RFCs as > Historic" process - this involves copying the text of the supporting > draft into the "status-change" document, and then making the > supporting draft as Dead. > > Unfortunately I missed something obvious -- > draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv also updates RFC 6698 and RFC 6840; by > copying the text into the status-change document, there is nothing > left to actually *do* the updates. So, with apologies to the authors / > WG, can you please resubmit draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv with: > 1: RFC 6698, RFC 6840 listed in the "Updates" header > 2: Update the abstract to say "This document updates RFC 6698 by > excluding the DLV resource record from certificates, and updates RFC > 6840 by excluding the DLV registries from the trust anchor > selection." (or something similar) > 3: Marking this as Std Track (we are updating Std Track RFCs) > > I will then redo the IETF LC (because we moved from Informational to Std > Track). > > Sorry for not catching this (and thanks to Alvaro for noticing it), > W > > -- > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad > idea in the first place. > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair > of pants. > ---maf > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
