[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC 2026 section 6.2
Personally I find it being much more productive to declare the RFC's,
regardless of track, as historic if they are not to be used on the
Internet. As in "You make a mistake if you base your future on the
technology in this RFC".
On the other hand, it is important to remind "us" about this paragraph
now and then, because the interoperability test which is needed for
Draft standard is a very important measurement in our process.
paf -- editor of some RFC's which are Proposed since long back
On torsdag, mar 27, 2003, at 08:16 Europe/Stockholm, Harald Tveit
Alvestrand wrote:
This paragraph has been sleeping for as long as I've been involved in
the IETF; whenever someone raises it, the cry goes up of "don't waste
resources on such unproductive work; there are more important things
to do".
The oldest Proposed Standard on the books is RFC 698, from 1975.
Harald
--On søndag, mars 23, 2003 18:13:09 -0800 Randy Presuhn
<randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> wrote:
Hi -
RFC 2026 section 6.2 says, among other things:
When a standards-track specification has not reached the Internet
Standard level but has remained at the same maturity level for
twenty-four (24) months, and every twelve (12) months thereafter
until the status is changed, the IESG shall review the viability of
the standardization effort responsible for that specification and
the
usefulness of the technology. Following each such review, the IESG
shall approve termination or continuation of the development
effort,
at the same time the IESG shall decide to maintain the
specification
at the same maturity level or to move it to Historic status....
Is the intent of this that the WG should be reviewed (it talks about
the
"standardization effort") or that the documents' status should be
reviewed (since it talks about changing the specification to
historic)?
Randy