Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC 1072, RFC 1106, RFC 1110, RFC 1145, RFC 1146, RFC 1379, RFC 1644, and RFC 1693 to Historic Status
draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-02
Yes
(David Harrington)
(Ron Bonica)
(Sean Turner)
No Objection
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Robert Sparks)
(Russ Housley)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2011-03-16)
Unknown
I am ballotting "Yes" on this document, but there are a few issues I would like the author to consider before the document is passed to the RFC Editor. --- Abstract Please change this text from a "recommendation" to an "action" --- Surely this is a Historic RFC in its own right? I.e., RFC 1072 et al are obsoleted by a Historic RFC. --- Section 2 The RFC Editor is requested to change the status of the following RFCs to Historic [RFC2026]: I'm confused. Can the status of an existing RFC be changed? I thought it could only obsoleted. --- Section 3 This says IANA should mark as "obsolete". Shouldn't you use "deprecated"? I think you also need to tell IANA exactly what references they should place against each deprecated option.
David Harrington Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2011-03-17)
Unknown
Thanks for writing this.
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown