Correct classification of RFC 20 (ASCII format) to Internet Standard
status-change-rfc20-ascii-format-to-standard-00
Yes
(Alissa Cooper)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Stephen Farrell)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Alia Atlas)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Ted Lemon)
Abstain
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Do we approve these RFC status changes?"
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2015-01-05)
Unknown
There is a pending errata report to clarify that the appendices referred to are from the ANSI doc, not here in RFC 20. There is no value in reissuing this with another RFC number.
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-01-07)
Unknown
I don't particularly like that we are using the status change construct to move things that aren't on the Standards Track (which have the appropriate Standards Track boilerplate at the top of the document) to the Standards Track; I think doing so without writing something down about when we think that is appropriate is an accident waiting to happen. I'll probably get more torqued about this when we try to move Informational or Experimental documents to the Standards Track. And I think jumping straight to Internet Standard is fishy. (And I think this is a dubious thing to do in light of RFC 2026 section 7, which, ironically enough, itself references ANSI X3.4-1986). But I think once we do write down such an explanation of when it is appropriate to use the status change tool, we'd find that RFC 20 is the kind of thing that we would want to do that with: It's something that gets referenced from Standards Track documents, if we wrote down RFC 20 today it would be on the Standards Track, and it satisfies all of the requirements for being on the Standards Track. So I'm not going to object. I won't ballot "Yes", because if I were the sponsor of this document, I'd get the explanation of when we should and should not use the status change tool *before* I went on to approve of this document, but I'm not going to stand in the way of this.
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain
(2015-01-06)
Unknown
I think this is a bad idea and unecessary but I won't belabor the point.
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain
(2015-01-07)
Unknown
I'm with Joel. More unnecessary process-wonkery.