Subject: [newtrk] IESG comments on draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment-02.txt

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:19:53 +0100

Three Area Directors wished to discuss this draft. Please
see the tracker for the comments.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=13660&rfc_flag=0

Russ Housley found the title confusing.

Mark Townsley believes that RFC 1582 is in use.

Alex Zinin believes that RFC 1598 is also in use.

There are some more general comments, but those are the DISCUSSes.

Does the WG agree to following as a proposed resolution of these comments?

      Brian
---------------------------------
Note to RFC Editor

  The RFC Editor is requested to mark all the RFCs listed in
  Section 3 as Historic and remove them from the list of
  Proposed Standards.

  Please change the document title:

  OLD
     Getting rid of the cruft: an experiment to identify obsolete standards
                                 document

  NEW
     Getting rid of the cruft: Report from an experiment in identifying
           and reclassifying obolete standards documents

  Please change the following sentence in Section 3:

  OLD
    Similarly, RFCs 1381, 1382, 1471,
    1472, and 1473 were removed based on the belief that they were
    actively in use.

  NEW
    Similarly, RFCs 1381, 1382, 1471,
    1472, 1473, 1582 and 1598 were removed based on the belief that they were
    actively in use.

  Please DELETE the following lines from Section 3:

       RFC1582 (Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits)
       RFC1598 (PPP in X.25)

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:47:49 +0100

A slight update on this. Alex also wants to discuss the title and
abstract, since he didn't feel they were explicit enough, and he
has a few more RFCs he wants to check with the Routing directorate.
So a little more fixing than listed below may be needed, but it will
be along the same lines.

     Brian

.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:29:09 +0100

> So a little more fixing than listed below may be needed, but it will

I've suggested (with my co-author hat on) the following changes:

Title:

Abstract:

   This memo documents an experiment to review and classify Proposed
   Standards as not reflecting documented practice within the world
   today.  The results identify a set of documents that were marked
   as Proposed Standards that are now reclassified as Historic.

If the group does not object to those changes, and the IESG finds them 
sufficient, we're good to go....