Formally Deprecating Some ICMPv4 Message Types
draft-gp-obsolete-icmp-types-iana-01

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.

(Ron Bonica) Yes

(Adrian Farrel) Yes

Comment (2013-02-18)
Enough already! Publish and move on.

(Sean Turner) Yes

Comment (2013-02-19)
Let's publish this!

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Benoit Claise) No Objection

Comment (2013-02-18)
No objection to the publication of this document, but I would like to propose an improvement.

I understand that the title is "Formally Deprecating Some ICMPv4 Message Types", but, while reading the document, I've been wondering: do we have identical assignments for ICMPv6? If yes, should we deprecate them as well? If yes, is it done in a different document?
So I double checked: none of the ICMPv4 Message Type you want to deprecate are registered in ICMPv6. Good news. Why not share this good news with a sentence or two in this document?

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Barry Leiba) No Objection

Comment (2013-02-03)
I think it would be fine for this to be Informational, and I'm also happy with its being Standards Track.

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2013-02-16)
We should approve this document either way. However, I'd like to hear from the rest of the IESG: Because we didn't precisely follow the instructions in http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/designating-rfcs-as-historic.html for announcements of status changes, have we given sufficient notice of the move of RFC 1788 to Historic, or should we put out an additional 4-week Last Call on "RFC 1788 to Historic" for the 3/28 telechat? This document does call out the move to Historic in the abstract and it was Last Called (and got feedback), so perhaps this is sufficient. But it's not exactly what we said we would do.

One other thing, simply for clarity: The document shouldn't ask the *RFC Editor* to make the change to Historic; that's something that the IESG should generate a Protocol Action for. So, can you please make the following simple changes:

Abstract
OLD
   and requests the RFC Editor to change the status of RFC1788
   to "Historic".
NEW
   and requests that the status of RFC1788 be changed to "Historic".

Introduction
OLD
   and requests the RFC Editor to change the status of RFC1788
   to "Historic".
NEW
   and requests that the status of RFC1788 be changed to "Historic".

OLD
   requests the RFC Editor to change the status of RFC1788 to
   "Historic".
NEW
   requests that the status of RFC1788 be changed to "Historic".

Section 4:
OLD
   This document requests the RFC Editor to change the status of
   [RFC1788] to "Historic".
NEW
   This document requests that the status of [RFC1788] be changed to
   "Historic".

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection