Request to Move RFC 2754 to Historic Status
RFC 6254

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

Comment (2010-10-07 for -)
No email
send info
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 -)
No email
send info
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.

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection