Reclassification of RFC 1142 to Historic
draft-ietf-isis-rfc1142-to-historic-00
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2014-02-21
|
00 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-02-19
|
00 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2014-02-19
|
00 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2014-01-17
|
00 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2014-01-15
|
00 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2014-01-14
|
00 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2014-01-14
|
00 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2014-01-14
|
00 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2014-01-14
|
00 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2014-01-13
|
00 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2014-01-13
|
00 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2014-01-13
|
00 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-01-09
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2014-01-09
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2014-01-09
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-01-09
|
00 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2014-01-09
|
00 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2014-01-09
|
00 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2014-01-09
|
00 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2014-01-07
|
00 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2014-01-06
|
00 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2014-01-06
|
00 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] I've got no problem with reclassifying 1142 as Historic. Normally, moving a document to Historic would require a separate Last Call, but the … [Ballot comment] I've got no problem with reclassifying 1142 as Historic. Normally, moving a document to Historic would require a separate Last Call, but the Last Call for this document was crystal clear in what it intended. And even though I find it a bit weird to move an Informational document to Historic, this document makes it clear that the purpose in doing so is to assure that references no longer get made to 1142, since 1142 is no longer the definitive spec. That said, I'd really prefer if we stopped this practice of *documents* "reclassifying" other documents. A document can't make another document move from Proposed to Standard, and similarly a document shouldn't make another document move to Historic (recent practices notwithstanding). The *IESG* reclassifies documents. So I'd ask that you change the Abstract to say: This memo outlines why RFC 1142, OSI IS-IS Intra-domain Routing Protocol, should be moved to Historic status. I'd strike the bit about Obsoletes. This document is not a new version of 1142, which is why you'd use Obsoletes. 1142 will show as Historic in all of the tools, so no need to have Obsoletes as well. Finally, strike the last paragraph of section 1. (Note to Adrian: When this document gets approved, make sure you remind the Secretariat to send out a *separate* Document Action to move RFC 1142 to Historic. Without the status change document, that won't get done automatically.) |
2014-01-06
|
00 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2014-01-06
|
00 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2014-01-06
|
00 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2014-01-06
|
00 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2014-01-05
|
00 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2014-01-03
|
00 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2014-01-02
|
00 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Hilarie Orman. |
2013-12-30
|
00 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Procedurally, I wish this had been done with a status-change document, rather than with an RFC. But I have no objection -- the … [Ballot comment] Procedurally, I wish this had been done with a status-change document, rather than with an RFC. But I have no objection -- the action seems correct. |
2013-12-30
|
00 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2013-12-28
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued |
2013-12-28
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2013-12-28
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
2013-12-28
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2013-12-28
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-01-09 |
2013-12-28
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-12-24
|
00 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call (ends 2013-12-24) |
2013-12-17
|
00 | Dan Romascanu | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu. |
2013-12-14
|
00 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2013-12-14
|
00 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2013-12-14
|
00 | Amanda Baber | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-isis-rfc1142-to-historic-00, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-isis-rfc1142-to-historic-00, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. IANA requests that the IANA Considerations section of the document remain in place upon publication. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2013-12-12
|
00 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2013-12-12
|
00 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2013-12-12
|
00 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Hilarie Orman |
2013-12-12
|
00 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Hilarie Orman |
2013-12-12
|
00 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Niclas Comstedt |
2013-12-12
|
00 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Niclas Comstedt |
2013-12-10
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2013-12-10
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Reclassification of RFC 1142 to … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Reclassification of RFC 1142 to Historic) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the IS-IS for IP Internets WG (isis) to consider the following document: - 'Reclassification of RFC 1142 to Historic' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-12-24. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This memo reclassifies RFC 1142, OSI IS-IS Intra-domain Routing Protocol, to Historic status. This memo also obsoletes RFC 1142. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-rfc1142-to-historic/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-rfc1142-to-historic/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2013-12-10
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2013-12-10
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | Last call was requested |
2013-12-10
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-12-10
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2013-12-10
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was changed |
2013-12-10
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-12-10
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-12-10
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was generated |
2013-12-09
|
00 | Christian Hopps | Added shepherd and write-up. |
2013-12-09
|
00 | Christian Hopps | (1) What type of RFC is being requested Historic Why? (From the Intro section): RFC 1142[RFC1142] was a … (1) What type of RFC is being requested Historic Why? (From the Intro section): RFC 1142[RFC1142] was a republication of ISO DP 10589 originally provided as a service to the Internet community. However, ISO DP 10589 was an ISO "Draft Proposal" which differed in a considerable number of significant respects from the final standardised version published as ISO/IEC 10589[ISO10589-First-Edition], and subsequently revised as ISO/IEC 10589 second edition[ISO10589-Second-Edition]. It has been an ongoing source of confusion when RFC 1142 has been unwittingly quoted or referenced in place of ISO/IEC 10589 itself. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: This draft moves RFC1142 to historic status. RFC1142 represents a republication of a ISO draft is not accurate with the final published standard. Working Group Summary: No controversy. Document Quality: N/A Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Christian Hopps Who is the Responsible Area Director? ??? (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document has been reviewed to correctly obsolete RFC1142. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. None. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? No IPR. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? Very Solid -- no objections at all, vocal supprot from many. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. None. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. Yes RFC1142, and it is listed in the title page, the abstract and the introduction. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). N/A (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. N/A |
2013-12-09
|
00 | Christian Hopps | Document shepherd changed to Chris Hopps |
2013-10-03
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | Need a shepherd write-up |
2013-10-03
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed from AD Evaluation |
2013-09-29
|
00 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2013-09-09
|
00 | Hannes Gredler | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2013-09-09
|
00 | Hannes Gredler | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-09-09
|
00 | Hannes Gredler | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2013-09-09
|
00 | Hannes Gredler | State Change Notice email list changed to isis-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-isis-rfc1142-to-historic@tools.ietf.org |
2013-09-09
|
00 | Hannes Gredler | Responsible AD changed to Adrian Farrel |
2013-09-09
|
00 | Hannes Gredler | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-09-09
|
00 | Hannes Gredler | IESG state set to Publication Requested |
2013-09-09
|
00 | Hannes Gredler | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2013-09-09
|
00 | Hannes Gredler | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2013-09-09
|
00 | Hannes Gredler | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2013-08-06
|
00 | Les Ginsberg | New version available: draft-ietf-isis-rfc1142-to-historic-00.txt |