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

[Ballot comment]
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?)

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot comment]
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?

[Ballot discuss]
I want to discuss Tony Hansen's Last Call comment, suggesting that we not publish documents like this until newtrk figures out how this should happen:

From: Tony Hansen
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic' to
        Informational RFC
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:34:13 -0500
To: iesg@ietf.org

I've argued before against the publication of RFCs such as this, and
will argue once again.

This I-D does not need to be published. Yes, RFC 1863 may need to be
reclassified as historic, but we don't need a new RFC to tell us that.

Part of the newtrack work is to handle situations like this. I'd suggest
a moratorium on publishing ANY RFCs such as this one until the newtrack
work finishes in this area.

        Tony Hansen
        tony@att.com