Skip to main content

Conclusion of FYI RFC Sub-Series
RFC 6360

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2016-11-03
01 (System) Received changes through RFC Editor sync (removed Errata tag)
2011-08-19
01 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue.
2011-08-19
01 (System) RFC published
2011-07-19
01 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent.
2011-07-18
01 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2011-07-18
01 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2011-07-18
01 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2011-07-18
01 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2011-07-18
01 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2011-07-14
01 Cindy Morgan Removed from agenda for telechat
2011-07-14
01 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation.
2011-07-14
01 Adrian Farrel Approval announcement text changed
2011-07-14
01 Adrian Farrel Approval announcement text regenerated
2011-07-14
01 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded
2011-07-13
01 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-07-13
01 Amy Vezza State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead.
2011-07-13
01 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded
2011-07-13
01 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup text changed
2011-07-13
01 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup text changed
2011-07-13
01 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup text changed
2011-07-12
01 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-07-11
01 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded
2011-07-11
01 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded
2011-07-11
01 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded
2011-07-10
01 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-07-09
01 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded
2011-07-08
01 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call.
2011-07-07
01 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded
2011-07-07
01 Wesley Eddy [Ballot comment]
something seems wrong with the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Background section around "that regarding"
2011-07-07
01 Wesley Eddy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-07-01
01 Stephen Farrell [Ballot comment]
maybe s/should be used/can be used/ for citations.
2011-07-01
01 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-06-29
01 David Harrington [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-06-17
01 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to David McGrew
2011-06-17
01 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to David McGrew
2011-06-16
01 Amanda Baber We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.
2011-06-10
01 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2011-06-10
01 Amy Vezza
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: …
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call: <draft-iesg-rfc1150bis-01.txt> (Conclusion of FYI RFC Sub-series) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Conclusion of FYI RFC Sub-series'
  <draft-iesg-rfc1150bis-01.txt> as an Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-07-08. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document concludes the For Your Information (FYI) sub-series of
  RFCs, established by RFC 1150 for use by the IETF User Services Area,
  which no longer exists.  The IESG does not intend to make any further
  additions to this RFC sub-series, and this document provides a record
  of this decision.  This document also obsoletes RFC 1150 and changes
  the status of RFC 1150 to Historic.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iesg-rfc1150bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iesg-rfc1150bis/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2011-06-09
01 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2011-06-09
01 Adrian Farrel Ballot has been issued
2011-06-09
01 Adrian Farrel Created "Approve" ballot
2011-06-09
01 Adrian Farrel Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-07-14
2011-06-09
01 Adrian Farrel Last Call was requested
2011-06-09
01 Adrian Farrel State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation.
2011-06-09
01 Adrian Farrel Last Call text changed
2011-06-09
01 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2011-06-09
01 (System) Last call text was added
2011-06-09
01 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2011-06-09
01 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup text changed
2011-06-09
01 Adrian Farrel [Note]: changed to 'Adrian Farrel (adrian@olddog.co.uk) is the document shepherd'
2011-06-06
01 Adrian Farrel State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested.
2011-06-06
01 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup text changed
2011-06-06
01 Adrian Farrel [Note]: 'Russ Housley (housley@vigilsec.com) is the document shepherd' added
2011-06-06
01 Adrian Farrel State Change Notice email list has been changed to iesg@ietf.org from housley@vigilsec.com
2011-06-06
01 Russ Housley Note field has been cleared
2011-06-06
01 Russ Housley
Write-up for draft-iesg-rfc1150bis-01

  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version …
Write-up for draft-iesg-rfc1150bis-01

  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document
        and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready
        for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

  Russ Housley will be the shepherd.  He has reviewed the document, and
  he believes it is ready for publication.

  (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
        the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd
        have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
        have been performed?

  Version -00 of the document was discussed on the rfc-interest mail
  list, and comments resulted in version -01 of the document.

  (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g.,
        security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA,
        internationalization or XML?

  No concerns.

  (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
        issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
        and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or
        she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has
        concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if
        the interested community has discussed those issues and has
        indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
        those concerns here.

  No concerns.

  (1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
        this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
        individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
        community as a whole understand and agree with it?

  The IESG has strong consensus to conclude the FYI sub-series.

  (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
        separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
        should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
        entered into the ID Tracker.)

  No concerns.

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
        and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not
        enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all
        formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media
        type and URI type reviews?

  ID nits reports no problems.  No concerns about formal review.

  (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
        informative? Are there normative references to documents that are
        not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
        If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their
        completion? Are there normative references that are downward
        references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward
        references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure
        for them [RFC3967].

  References are split.  There are no downward references.

  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of
        the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are
        reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the
        IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new
        registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the
        registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations?
        Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See
        [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If the document
        describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the
        Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed
        Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

  There are no actions for IANA.

  (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code,
        BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an
        automated checker?

  There is no formal language in the document.

  (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
        Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
        Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the
        "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
        announcement contains the following sections:

  Technical Summary
   
  This document concludes the For Your Information (FYI) sub-series of
  RFCs, established by RFC 1150 for use by the IETF User Services Area,
  which no longer exists.  The IESG does not intend to make any further
  additions to this RFC sub-series, and this document provides a record
  of this decision.  This document also obsoletes RFC 1150 and changes
  the status of RFC 1150 to Historic.

  Working Group Summary
 
  This document is not the product of any IETF working group.

  Document Quality

  This document was discussed on the rfc-interest mail list.  No one
  spoke against closure of the FYI sub-series on that mail list.

  RFC Editor Note

  Please correct a typo in the first paragraph of Section 1:

  OLD:

    ... information that regarding the Internet and might be
    interesting to ...

  NEW:

    ... information regarding the Internet that might be
    interesting to ...
2011-06-06
01 Russ Housley
[Note]: 'Write-up for draft-iesg-rfc1150bis-01<br><br>  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the <br>        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the …
[Note]: 'Write-up for draft-iesg-rfc1150bis-01<br><br>  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the <br>        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document <br>        and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready <br>        for forwarding to the IESG for publication?<br><br>  Russ Housley will be the shepherd.  He has reviewed the document, and<br>  he believes it is ready for publication.<br><br>  (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of <br>        the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd <br>        have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that <br>        have been performed?<br><br>  Version -00 of the document was discussed on the rfc-interest mail<br>  list, and comments resulted in version -01 of the document.<br><br>  (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document <br>        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., <br>        security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, <br>        internationalization or XML?<br><br>  No concerns.<br><br>  (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or <br>        issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director <br>        and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or <br>        she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has <br>        concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if <br>        the interested community has discussed those issues and has <br>        indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail <br>        those concerns here.<br><br>  No concerns.<br><br>  (1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind <br>        this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few <br>        individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested <br>        community as a whole understand and agree with it?<br><br>  The IESG has strong consensus to conclude the FYI sub-series.<br><br>  (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme <br>        discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in <br>        separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It <br>        should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is <br>        entered into the ID Tracker.)<br><br>  No concerns.<br><br>  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the <br>        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist <br>        and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not <br>        enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all <br>        formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media <br>        type and URI type reviews?<br><br>  ID nits reports no problems.  No concerns about formal review.<br><br>  (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and <br>        informative? Are there normative references to documents that are <br>        not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? <br>        If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their <br>        completion? Are there normative references that are downward <br>        references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward <br>        references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure <br>        for them [RFC3967].<br><br>  References are split.  There are no downward references.<br><br>  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA <br>        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of <br>        the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are <br>        reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the <br>        IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new <br>        registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the <br>        registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? <br>        Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See <br>        [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If the document <br>        describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the <br>        Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed <br>        Expert during the IESG Evaluation?<br><br>  There are no actions for IANA.<br><br>  (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the <br>        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, <br>        BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an <br>        automated checker?<br><br>  There is no formal language in the document.<br><br>  (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document <br>        Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document <br>        Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the <br>        "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval <br>        announcement contains the following sections:<br><br>  Technical Summary<br>    <br>   This document concludes the For Your Information (FYI) sub-series of<br>   RFCs, established by RFC 1150 for use by the IETF User Services Area,<br>   which no longer exists.  The IESG does not intend to make any further<br>   additions to this RFC sub-series, and this document provides a record<br>   of this decision.  This document also obsoletes RFC 1150 and changes<br>   the status of RFC 1150 to Historic.<br><br>  Working Group Summary<br>  <br>   This document is not the product of any IETF working group.<br><br>  Document Quality<br><br>   This document was discussed on the rfc-interest mail list.  No one<br>   spoke against closure of the FYI sub-series on that mail list.<br><br>  RFC Editor Note<br><br>   Please correct a typo in the first paragraph of Section 1:<br><br>   OLD:<br><br>    ... information that regarding the Internet and might be<br>    interesting to ...<br><br>   NEW:<br><br>    ... information regarding the Internet that might be<br>    interesting to ...' added
2011-06-06
01 Russ Housley Draft added in state Publication Requested
2011-06-06
01 (System) New version available: draft-iesg-rfc1150bis-01.txt
2011-04-22
00 (System) New version available: draft-iesg-rfc1150bis-00.txt