Subject: Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fw: I-D Action:draft-presuhn-rfc2482-historic-00.txt

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:25:49 -0700

Hi Randy,
At 11:56 14-06-10, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>Please let me know if you have any comments on this I-D.
>I suggest the [email-masked] mailing list would be a suitable
>venue for discussion.

This I-D reclassifies RFC 2482 as Historic.  The Intended Status 
should be informational.   The RFC 2119 paragraph in Section 1 is not 
needed.   The "SHOULD NOT" in Section 2 can be lowercase.

If a RFC is Historic, it should not be referenced by newer RFCs as 
that status does not apply to Standards Track documents only as 
mentioned in Section 2.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:52:09 -0700

Hi -

Unless my co-authors object, I'll change the intended status to "informational"
and remove the 2119 material as suggested.

Randy

> From: "SM" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 12:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Fw: I-D Action:draft-presuhn-rfc2482-historic-00.txt
>
> Hi Randy,

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:48:18 -0400

--On Monday, June 14, 2010 12:52 -0700 Randy Presuhn
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi -
> 
> Unless my co-authors object, I'll change the intended status
> to "informational" and remove the 2119 material as suggested.

Sigh.  Whatever makes the IESG happy is fine with me.

If I remember the ritual dance, the document explains why the
earlier one was moved to Historic, the actual move is, in
theory, a separate IESG "Protocol Action".  

So Peter and SM are correct.  FWIW, the justification for
identifying it as Standards Track was that things can become
Historic for all sorts of Informational-type reasons.  IMO, if
we want to say not only "that document is Historic" but "Do NOT
Use This", the latter requires a standards-track document and
2119 language.  But, again, I prefer whatever makes the IESG
happy and lets this be processed with minimal waste of
everyone's time.

Use of the LTRU list is ok with me -- the substantive expertise
is probably there-- but remember that this issue arose in
conjunction with an inquiry from the Apps ADs about a "nits"
file and our noticing that Unicode had deprecated the mechanism.
The note went to "apps-discuss"; I don't know what fraction of
the participants in the former LTRU WG follow that list.  

Neither the original posting nor the Unicode deprecation action
have much to do with the specifics of LTRU unless someone in
that WG would propose that the IETF retain this mechanism in
spite of  Unicode's having deprecated it and strongly
discouraged its use.

best,
   john