On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 7:14 AM, t.petch <[email protected]> wrote: > Far simpler just > to declare a status change of the RFC; no RFC needed. >
But it doesn't address my primary problem: if you look at a MIB repository, you see a nice IPV6-MIB with lots of "STATUS current" objects, and you say "Ah, cool, here are all the objects I need to implement for IPv6!". I knew going into this effort that "just reclassify things as historic" would be one possible outcome, but I want to aim higher than that. Despite outward appearances, the IESG is not an inflexible automaton; I hope to be able to work with them to be able to come to agreement that this is a worthwhile endeavor and need not be subject to the significant scrutiny that a MIB module with implementable objects should be. The first step down that path is to publish my draft and say "this is what I'm thinking it'll look like". Bill
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
