RFC 3627 to Historic Status
RFC 6547

[Ballot comment]
Has there actually been confusion by people referring to and using 3627? This document says that it is moving 3627 to Historic to avoid such confusion, but never actually said that such confusions occurred. If they have occurred, it would be useful to say that. If they haven't occurred, I wonder why this document was necessary. (Note: Neither the shepherding writeup nor the IESG writeup were helpful in this regard as neither actually mentioned why the WG thought this was a useful document. It only had the standard one-liner saying, "there was consensus", which was not useful info.)

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (RFC3627 to Historic status) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
consider the following document:
- 'RFC3627 to Historic status'
  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 2012-01-24. 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 moves RFC3627 (Use of /127 Prefix Length Between
  Routers Considered Harmful) to HISTORIC status to reflect the updated
  guidance contained in RFC6164 (Using 127-Bit IPv6 Prefixes on Inter-
  Router Links).  While a standards track document already supersedes
  an informational document and therefore RFC6164 is the appropriate
  guidance to follow when the two documents are in conflict, this links
  the two documents so that it is clearer that the IETF has updated
  guidance on the matter.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-3627-historic/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-3627-historic/


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

I have reviewed this document, and as it obviously was ready to be moved forward, asked for an IETF Last Call to be initiated. Thanks for writing the document.

Jari

  (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?

Brian Haberman is the document shepherd for this document, has reviewed
this version, and believes it is ready for IESG review.

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

This draft has been reviewed by several key members of the 6man WG.
The shepherd does not have concerns with the depth or breadth of these
reviews.

  (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.

  (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 WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
        that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
        concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
        been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
        this issue.

No.

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

This document has strong concurrence from a number of WG participants.

  (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.

  (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?

This draft has no ID-nits errors.

  (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].

All references are in order.

  (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 suggest a
        reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. 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?

The IANA Considerations are in order.

  (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?

N/A.

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

    Technical Summary
        This document moves RFC3627 (Use of /127 Prefix Length Between
        Routers Considered Harmful) to HISTORIC status to reflect the
        updated guidance contained in RFC6164 (Using 127-Bit IPv6
        Prefixes on Inter-Router Links).  While a standards track
        document already supersedes an informational document and
        therefore RFC6164 is the appropriate guidance to follow when the
        two documents are in conflict, this links the two documents so
        that it is clearer that the IETF has updated guidance on the
        matter.

    Working Group Summary
        This document was reviewed by the 6man WG and represents the
        consensus of the group.

    Document Quality
        This document formally moves RFC 3627 to Historic given the
        existence and use of RFC 6164.