Reclassification of RFC 1863 to Historic
RFC 4223
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
(Allison Mankin; former steering group member) No Objection
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?)
(Bert Wijnen; former steering group member) No Objection
(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) (was Discuss, Yes) No Objection
(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) No Objection
Newtrk isn't looking at Informationals. I think we should continue at normal course and speed.
(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection
I agree with Bill's DISCUSS. No need to record an additional DISCUSS.
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Scott Hollenbeck; former steering group member) No Objection
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?
(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection
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.