Earlier, on 29th October 2011, Mike StJohns wrote, in part:
> With respect to the other four documents (e.g. Milo's baby et al) --
> they aren't IETF documents, they weren't adopted as
> Internet Standards (unlike TCP and IP) and we shouldn't be
> twiddling with their status. They don't belong to
te, but we
should do what is obvious anyway.
Ross
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ronald
Bonica
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 3:57 PM
To: Randy Bush; Frank Ellermann
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: RE: Last Calls: [SOME RFCs] to HIS
c is like cleaning your attic.
>>> Cleaning the attic may seem like a terrible waste of time and effort while
>>> you are doing it, but it makes your life much easier the next time you have
>>> to find or store something up there.
>>>
>>>
> Cleaning the attic may seem like a terrible waste of time and effort while
>> you are doing it, but it makes your life much easier the next time you have
>> to find or store something up there.
>>
>>Ron
>>
>>
>>>
n Behalf Of
> > Randy Bush
> > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 2:47 PM
> > To: Frank Ellermann
> > Cc: IETF Discussion
> > Subject: Re: Last Calls: [SOME RFCs] to HISTORIC RFCs
> >
> > >> we don't have enough real work to do?
> > >
>
Ron
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Randy Bush
>> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 2:47 PM
>> To: Frank Ellermann
>> Cc: IETF Discussion
>> Subject: Re: Last Cal
.
Ron
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Randy Bush
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 2:47 PM
> To: Frank Ellermann
> Cc: IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: Last Calls: [SOME RFCs] to HISTORIC
>> we don't have enough real work to do?
>
> Clean up is necessary work. Some hours ago
> I tried to understand a discussion about the
> "ISE" (independent stream), and gave up on
> it when the maze of updates obsoleting RFCs
> which updated other RFCs turned out to be
> as complex as the colossa
On 28 October 2011 16:36, Randy Bush wrote:
> we don't have enough real work to do?
Clean up is necessary work. Some hours ago
I tried to understand a discussion about the
"ISE" (independent stream), and gave up on
it when the maze of updates obsoleting RFCs
which updated other RFCs turned out t
we don't have enough real work to do?
randy
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
These were requested by one of the authors of the RFCs in question.
We will gladly consider other requests.
Russ
On Oct 28, 2011, at 12:45 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm in favor of moving these RFCs to Historic:
>
> RFC 1005 (ARPANET AHIP-E Host Access Protocol (enhanced AHI
I would suggest that the pre-IETF RFCs that weren't adopted as Internet
standards (I.e. the first four you listed) are not properly the purview of the
IETF for the purpose of declaring them historical.
For the other three - a quick check indicates these were properly superseded as
you note.
Hello,
I'm in favor of moving these RFCs to Historic:
RFC 1005 (ARPANET AHIP-E Host Access Protocol (enhanced AHIP)),
RFC 979 (PSN End-to-End functional specification),
RFC 878 (ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol) and all predecessors,
RFC 852 (ARPANET short blocking feature),
and do not mind m
13 matches
Mail list logo
