Valuable Antique Documents: A Model for Advancement
draft-klensin-newtrk-antiques-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Dr. John C. Klensin | ||
| Last updated | 2004-09-24 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
RFC 2026 and some of its predecessors require that Proposed and Draft Standards either advance in grade within a reasonable period of time or that they expire and be moved to Historic. That procedure has never been followed on a systematic basis. A new procedure has been proposed that would make that action easier for protocols that have not gotten any real acceptance. In the interest of symmetry, fairness, and an orderly attic, it is worth noting that there are a number of protocol descriptions which have been at less than Full Standard level for a long time but which have proven their value by the traditional criteria of multiple interoperable implementations This document provides a procedure for upgrading such documents to Full Standards without creating an unreasonable burden on authors purely to meet the needs of procedural rituals or placing an unreasonable load on groups charged with performing other tasks in the IETF.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)