Hi, On 9 Feb 2024, at 19:51, Ran Atkinson wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 2024, at 06:46, Rick Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The main point of discussion here is about IETF process: obsoleting IRTF >> documents by the IETF is considered unusual. Finding a simple way around >> this, such as not obsoleting 7116 is an approach we could consider, it's >> just a matter of determining a valid reason why the ipn update doesn't >> obsolete 7116. > > Rick, > > I apologize if this sounds unreasonable, but I really think you are making > this process much too complex. > > First, maybe you open a conversation with the IRTF Chair and describe the > situation as you see it. > Then ask if the IRTF Chair or IRSG would agree to move that IRTF document to > Historic status ? > > It is possible that someone (might be them or might be you) would need to > create a short "IRTF Track" document which explains the background and then > changes the status of the applicable documents to “Historic” or whatever is > deemed sensible by the IRTF Chair. We wrote https://www.irtf.org/policies/cross-stream-updates.html the last time a similar issue came up. Does it address your concern? (The "other stream manager" would be the IETF Chair, if this is an IETF document) Colin _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
