Subject: RFC 2026 section 6.2

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:13:09 -0800

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

---

From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:31:26 -0800

>reviewed (since it talks about changing the specification to historic)?

Heh. I had forgotten about that section. Somehow, I suspect that the 
IESG rarely (if ever) does this review. I'm sure we would have all 
heard about it more often by now if they had. There are a zillion 
Proposed Standards that are languishing well after their two years.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:16:11 +0100

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

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:26:23 +0100

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".
>