Reclassification of RFC 3525 to Historic
draft-taylor-megaco-obsol3525-01

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

Lars Eggert Yes

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection

Just a reminder to update:
  http://www3.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/HistoricStatus
with the outcome of any discussion on this topic.

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

(David Ward; former steering group member) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Record

I agree with Magnus. It is 3525 that is becoming historic. This document (draft-taylor-megaco-obsol3525) should be informational. 

As another example of another RFC with a similar purpose, RFC 4794 had the effect of moving 1264 to historic. RFC4794 is itself informational.