Subject: Re: [newtrk] Reviewing state of PS and DS standards

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:05:04 -0400 (EDT)

Brian asserted:
> The review is a no-op unless the people who care have produced
> an implementation report. 

not quite - the review could result an effort to reclassify the
RFC as historic (no implementation report needed for unused technology :-) )

Scott
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:34:34 -0400

Just for the record.  I am completely unconvinced that doing this  
review is actually useful...

Even if we move documents to historic, that doesn't remove their code- 
point assignments or stop people from using them.

My hope would be that if we push on the IESG to actually follow these  
rules, that will give us at least one group of 15 people with some  
motivation to change RFC 2026 to reflect what we've been doing for  
the past ~10 years.  I think that most of the IETF is unaware of this  
requirement in RFC 2026 and doesn't care one way or the other whether  
the IESG periodically reviews our PS documents.

I don't actually think that we need a WG to consider whether a change  
is needed to fix this, though.  So, this isn't an argument against  
shutting down newtrk.

Margaret

.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:56:45 +0200

> RFC as historic (no implementation report needed for unused technology :-) )

I guess. But as the decruft exercise showed, this isn't entirely a no-op
either; actually both the Last Call and the IESG review identified a few
more RFCs asserted still to be in use.

However, there is nothing intrinsic to the IESG that makes it good
at doing either decruft reviews or promotion reviews. If people in
the community bring well formulated decruft or promotion proposals
to the IESG, there's no reason they won't get handled.

     Brian
.