Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC 1072, RFC 1106, RFC 1110, RFC 1145, RFC 1146, RFC 1379, RFC 1644, and RFC 1693 to Historic Status
RFC 6247
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes
I am ballotting "Yes" on this document, but there are a few issues I would like the author to consider before the document is passed to the RFC Editor. --- Abstract Please change this text from a "recommendation" to an "action" --- Surely this is a Historic RFC in its own right? I.e., RFC 1072 et al are obsoleted by a Historic RFC. --- Section 2 The RFC Editor is requested to change the status of the following RFCs to Historic [RFC2026]: I'm confused. Can the status of an existing RFC be changed? I thought it could only obsoleted. --- Section 3 This says IANA should mark as "obsolete". Shouldn't you use "deprecated"? I think you also need to tell IANA exactly what references they should place against each deprecated option.
(David Harrington; former steering group member) Yes
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes
Thanks for writing this.
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) Yes
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) Yes
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection