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 |