Subject: [sunset4] RFC 796 to Historic

From: Greg Skinner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 02:14:02 +0000

I recently noticed that RFC 796, Address Mappings, contains
out-of-date information, but its status has never been changed to
Historic.  At the suggestion of the sunset4 WG chairs, I would like to
bring this topic up for discussion on the list.  Here are the relevant
sections of the first cut of the draft I wrote:

=====
                
Abstract

   This memo reclassifies RFC 796, Address Mappings, to Historic
   status.  This memo also obsoletes RFC 796.

1.  Reclassification of RFC 796 to Historic

   RFC 796 [RFC796] specifies formats for "classful" IPv4 addresses.
   It also specifies mappings for some existing networks at the time it
   was published between their "local" network representations and
   IPv4 equivalents.  However, "classful" addresses have been largely
   superseded by CIDR [RFC4632].  Furthermore, the vast majority of
   these addresses have either been reassigned to other organizations,
   or are considered part of private address space [RFC1918].
   Therefore, RFC 796 is reclassified to Historic status.

5.  References

5.1.  Normative References

   [RFC796]   Postel, J., "Address Mappings", 1981,
              <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc796>.

5.2.  Informative References

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G.,
              and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP
              5, RFC 1918, February 1996.

   [RFC4632]  Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
              (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
              Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006.

=====

Regards,
Greg

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 15:09:47 -0500

> sections of the first cut of the draft I wrote:

The IESG is unlikely to accept a draft that moves RFC 796 to Historic, since it can be done without a draft.   If you want me to propose to the IESG that RFC 796 be moved to historic, I'd be happy to do so.

---

From: "George, Wes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:55:20 -0500

Ted - he approached Marc and I and we recommended the draft, as there has
been some conflicting information about this. For example, RFC6547
resulted from me asking how to get 3627 declared historic, and that’s not
really what I’d consider controversial, it was an editorial fix.

I’ll be happy if a draft is not needed.

Thanks,

Wes

On 2/23/14, 3:09 PM, "Ted Lemon" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>The IESG is unlikely to accept a draft that moves RFC 796 to Historic,
>since it can be done without a draft.   If you want me to propose to the
>IESG that RFC 796 be moved to historic, I'd be happy to do so.
>
>_______________________________________________
>sunset4 mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.