Request to Move RFC 2754 to Historic Status
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
(Jari Arkko) Yes
Comment (2010-10-07 for -)
The introduction says: In practice, this was never done in the public Internet. During a detailed review of IANA's protocol registration activities in support of the IETF, this request for IANA action was identified. The last sentence seems disconnected from the rest. Can it be deleted or reformulated? Right now, the sentence sounds like we had identified a need to do something. As I understand it, we identified an old RFC that suggested IANA activities that are no longer relevant.
(Russ Housley) Yes
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection
(Lars Eggert) No Objection
(Adrian Farrel) No Objection
(Tim Polk) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu) No Objection
Comment (2010-10-06 for -)
The OPS-DIR review byLionel Morand raised the following issue which would be worth being explained: In the section 2, it is stated: During a review of RFCs in 2009 it became apparent that the IANA actions requested in RFC 2754 were never done. In the intervening time, another technology appears to be taking the role once envisioned for Distributed RPSL. It may be helpful for the reader to know what is this alternative solution. A simple reference can be useful.