Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic
draft-ietf-idr-rfc1863-historic-00

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

Comment (2005-04-21)
No email
send info
Newtrk isn't looking at Informationals. I think we should continue at normal course and speed.

(Bill Fenner) (was Discuss, Yes) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

Comment (2005-04-22)
No email
send info
If NEWTRK has a suggested procedure for this, then I think we could
adopt that procedure in the interim and use it instead of RFC
publication.  But I think we need some formal adoption before
we switch (either publication of an RFC, minuted agreement to a
publishable procedure, or whatever).  In the mean time, I think
we should take these as they come.

(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection

Comment (2005-04-20)
No email
send info
I can understand where Tony is coming from, but I think there's value in having a record of the decision to reclassify an RFC.  Is some other means of recording such decisions being considered?

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

Comment (2005-04-25)
No email
send info
I agree with Bill's DISCUSS. No need to record an additional DISCUSS.

(Allison Mankin) No Objection

Comment (2005-04-24)
No email
send info
My understanding of the old-standards process is that the IESG will pass
something like this for the group of documents when that process gives
its output to us - and within that group, some of the documents will
need to have specific notations in the published document.  I do not
see why there should be forbearance from publishing this one.  I believe
there should be a permanent record of documents going to Historic;
it need not be per document like this one.

(And where is the old-standards process?  What's the snag?)

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

(Bert Wijnen) No Objection