Subject: [newtrk] new mailing list- old-standards

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:07:14 +0100

[For those who didn't see this on the ietf-announce list]

Dear all,

The NEWTRK WG has been discussing draft-ietf-newtrk-cruft-01 for
some time now. The WG has consensus that it would be worthwhile to
run an experiment to figure out whether the process suggested can
be achieved.

This is a call for participants in that experiment.

A new mailing list "[email-masked]" has been created to
discuss those documents that have not made full Internet standard and
are beyond the time limits stated in RFC 2026. After a suitable time
we'll organize ourselves and come up with a list of documents that we
believe (a) should be left alone (b) should be marked Historic or (c)
should be advanced. We'll create a record of the documents discussed
and produce a recommendation that the NEWTRK working group will then
consider. We are aiming to have some sampling to take to the next IETF
meeting in Minneapolis in March.

The group will decide which documents to consider, criteria to make a
determination, and then proceed to take such actions necessary to make a
determination, perhaps iteratively, this being an experiment.

Aside from the list of documents, their outcomes, and their reasons,
hopefully the list will provide useful input into ways to update
draft-ietf-newtrk-cruft-00.txt.

I would like to invite any and all interested parties to participate.

To subscribe, go to the following web page:

http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/old-standards

Eliot

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

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:01:42 -0600

> meeting in Minneapolis in March.

I signed up for the mailing list and believe this will be very helpful 
for people outside the IETF traditional community who are using our 
specifications (with various degrees of ease).

But we do need a word.

We've chatted at a couple of NEWTRK meetings (plus on the list, I 
believe) and don't seem to have a consensus on whether Historic means 
"Forgotten" or "Evil", because we have some specifications that have 
actually been moved to Historic in order to say "don't do this any 
more".

When we (the community) see the list in March, things may be somewhat 
clearer (if everything on the list is "Evil", that means one thing, if 
everything is "Forgotten", that means something else).

But, in the meantime, I'd like to ask people to be thinking about the 
possibility of two exits off "Standard" - something like "Deprecated, 
and not reasonable to deploy on today's internet", and "Forgotten - 
not that there's anything wrong with it, but no one in the IETF even 
thinks about it any more".

There's no shame in using a "Forgotten" protocol, in appropriate 
deployments - we all know that moving a protocol to Historic (whether 
Forgotten-Historic or Evil-Historic) doesn't actually cause hosts and 
routers to Disavow All Knowledge Of The Implementation.

I really wish we could seriously propose periodic re-review of 
Standards, but that hasn't happened in more than a handful of cases, 
no matter what our standards process BCPs said. If ISDs catch on, one 
possibility would be automatically moving ISDs to "Forgotten" if they 
haven't been updated in FIVE years - that would mean that we haven't 
even THOUGHT about the protocol described in the ISD, in any 
meaningful way. But I'm getting ahead of where we are as a working 
group.

Spencer 

.