Skip to main content

Correct classification of RFC 20 (ASCII format) to Internet Standard
status-change-rfc20-ascii-format-to-standard-00

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-01-12
00 Amy Vezza
The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: RFC Editor , john-ietf@jck.com
Subject: Document Action: ASCII format for network interchange to …
The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: RFC Editor , john-ietf@jck.com
Subject: Document Action: ASCII format for network interchange to Internet Standard

The IESG has approved changing the status of the following document:
- ASCII format for network interchange
  (rfc20) to Internet Standard

This document action is documented at:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-rfc20-ascii-format-to-standard/

A URL of the affected document is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc20/

Status Change Details:

RFC 20 has status "Unknown" only because it comes from a time
that predates both the IETF and our use of the term "standard"
(with or without qualifications) to describe Internet technical
specifications.  RFC 20, which is the best reference for the
IETF to use for ASCII format, is clearly an Internet Standard,
and this adjusts the historical record by reclassifying RFC 20 as
such.

Personnel

  Barry Leiba is the responsible Area Director.



2015-01-12
00 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the status change
2015-01-12
00 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2015-01-12
00 Amy Vezza RFC Status Change state changed to Approved - announcement sent from Approved - announcement to be sent
2015-01-08
00 Cindy Morgan RFC Status Change state changed to Approved - announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation
2015-01-07
00 Pete Resnick
[Ballot comment]
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 …
[Ballot comment]
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.
2015-01-07
00 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2015-01-07
00 Ted Lemon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon
2015-01-07
00 Richard Barnes [Ballot comment]
I'm with Joel.  More unnecessary process-wonkery.
2015-01-07
00 Richard Barnes [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Richard Barnes
2015-01-07
00 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2015-01-07
00 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2015-01-07
00 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2015-01-06
00 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot comment]
I think this is a bad idea and unecessary but I won't belabor the point.
2015-01-06
00 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2015-01-06
00 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2015-01-06
00 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2015-01-06
00 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2015-01-06
00 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2015-01-06
00 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2015-01-05
00 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2015-01-05
00 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2015-01-05
00 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
There is a pending errata report to clarify that the appendices referred to are from the ANSI doc, not here in RFC 20 …
[Ballot comment]
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.
2015-01-05
00 Barry Leiba Ballot comment text updated for Barry Leiba
2015-01-05
00 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2015-01-05
00 Barry Leiba Created "Approve" ballot
2015-01-05
00 Barry Leiba RFC Status Change state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2015-01-05
00 (System) RFC Status Change state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2014-12-08
00 Barry Leiba Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-01-08
2014-12-08
00 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call: Correct classification of RFC 20 (ASCII …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call: Correct classification of RFC 20 (ASCII format) to Internet Standard


The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make
the following status changes:

- RFC20 from Unknown to Internet Standard
    (ASCII format for network interchange)

The supporting document for this request can be found here:

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-rfc20-ascii-format-to-standard/

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 2015-01-05. 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.

The affected document can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc20/

IESG discussion of this request, once such discussion begins, will be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-rfc20-ascii-format-to-standard/ballot/


2014-12-08
00 Amy Vezza RFC Status Change state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2014-12-06
00 Barry Leiba Last call was requested
2014-12-06
00 Barry Leiba Ballot approval text was generated
2014-12-06
00 Barry Leiba Ballot writeup was generated
2014-12-06
00 Barry Leiba RFC Status Change state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Review
2014-12-06
00 Barry Leiba Last call announcement was changed
2014-12-06
00 Barry Leiba Last call announcement was generated
2014-12-06
00 Barry Leiba New version available: status-change-rfc20-ascii-format-to-standard-00.txt