Subject: Re: [Idr] RFC911 to Historic

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 11:37:48 -0800

On January 29, 2022 at 1:19:32 AM, Greg Skinner wrote:

Greg:

Hi!

Sorry this got lost in my inbox.  I found it now that the LC is over.

> How would all of you feel about bundling this request along with other
> related requests and/or actions to change the status of RFCs, as was
> discussed at IETF 30? Could this also be done in conjunction with an IDR
> working group milestone such as progressing RFC4271 as an Internet Standard?
> Based on what has been discussed on the Last Call for this request so far,
> bundling status changes in conjunction with significant working group tasks
> seems to be more acceptable.

Your proposal doesn't sound unreasonable to me.  However, the WG needs
to discuss, to begin with, whether it wants to take on the task of
moving rfc4172 to Internet Standard.  Changing the status of multiple
documents may be a result of that effort.

As far as rfc911 goes, the IESG discussed the feedback from the Last
Call.  In short, we agree that there's a current lack of clarity of
responsibility related to "unknown" status RFCs published before the
IETF was formed.  OTOH, there was no one opposed to the specific
change.  Instead of pushing forward with a status change through an
official IESG action, I am going to send a message to the RFC Editor
suggesting that they change the status -- it will be up to them if
they do so now, wait for the updated RFC Editor model to be in place,
or do nothing at all.

This action doesn't preclude the idr WG from making a similar
suggestion in the future.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: Greg Skinner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 09:24:51 -0800

> On Feb 18, 2022, at 11:37 AM, Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Putting RFC911 aside for a bit, progressing the base BGP specification (RFC4271) as Full Standard is a current idr WG milestone.  Is this still a goal?  At the very least, it has some errata that could be corrected.  There are some other things that could be cleaned up, such as rephrasing the requirement for MD5 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4271#appendix-E> in light of RFC2385 being obsoleted.

Greg