On Jun 2, 2011 4:05 PM, "John C Klensin" <[email protected]> wrote: > While the IESG is considering this, I would encourage you to > also consider the model used to make a specification that is > simply and obviously obsolete (and in A/S terms "not > recommended") Historic without having to have an I-D written and > processed into RFC via the same process used to create Standards > Track documents. In the cases in which we want to move a > specification to Historic because it is a bad idea, having an > RFC to explain why it was a bad idea seems appropriate. But for > the "no one cares about it any more" cases, it seems like a > lighter-weight procedure, such as a Last Call on the question > "does anyone believe that our impression that no one cares is > incorrect?" might be in order (and much closer to the procedure > that was used when (and before) 2026 was adopted.
Agree, but producing such a "no one cares anymore" RFC and getting it through the process should be lightweight enough already. It should slide right through. I hope we don't need yet another special process because our normal process is too heavy. Scott
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
