Subject: [apps-discuss] Designating SUPDUP-related RFCs as Historic

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 13:14:58 +0300

Hello,

RFC 734 specifies the SUPDUP protocol.  However, currently, RFC 734 is 
moved to Historic.  And, when moving it to Historic, a number of RFCs 
related to SUPDUP weren't.   They include RFC 736, 749, which are 
Standards Track (PSs), and 746 and 747, which are Unknown.  The first 
two are PSs and depend on Historic RFC, which I personally think it is 
inappropriate.  Therefore I'd like to ask whether there could be a 
consensus in moving all SUPDUP-related RFCs to Historic.

Thanks,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 03:29:57 -0700

Hi Mykyta,
At 03:14 07-07-2011, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>RFC 734 specifies the SUPDUP protocol.  However, currently, RFC 734 
>is moved to Historic.  And, when moving it to Historic, a number of 
>RFCs related to SUPDUP weren't.

According to the datatracker, you currently have three drafts about 
reclassification of RFCs.  As you are putting some effort in moving 
some RFCs to Historic, may I suggest that you use the approach 
documented in RFC 4450?

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 14:12:50 +0300

> some RFCs to Historic, may I suggest that you use the approach 
RFC 4450 was an effort of bulk reclassification, as mentioned there.  My 
proposal is to historicize 4 RFCs.  It is caused by a simple omission 
when moving RFC 734 to Historic.

Moreover, RFC 4450 was a result to suit the requirement of RFC 2026 for 
annual review of PSs, which will be eliminated by 
RFC-housley-two-maturity-levels.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 08:39:15 -0700

Hi Mykyta,
At 04:12 07-07-2011, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>RFC 4450 was an effort of bulk reclassification, as mentioned 
>there.  My proposal is to historicize 4 RFCs.  It is caused by a 
>simple omission when moving RFC 734 to Historic.

The following drafts are about a reclassification to Historic:

   draft-yevstifeyev-tsvwg-irtp-to-historic-01
   draft-yevstifeyev-foobar-to-historic-00

Starting with the message at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg02214.html 
, the topic of reclassification to Historic came up regularly since 
the beginning of the year.  As you seem interested in doing the work, 
I suggest that:

  (i)   You post an Internet-Draft with a list of (Apps Area) RFCs that you
        would like to see reclassified

  (ii)  Ask the Apps Area ADs to present the I-D at a meeting so that
        anyone interested is aware of the reclassification work

  (iii) Follow up on the Apps-discuss mailing list

  (iv)  Extended Last Call

The other alternative is:

  (i)   Post a message every few months about reclassifying some Apps Area
        specification

  (ii)  Post an I-D

  (iii) Last Call

  (iv)  Go back to step (i)

I'll quote a point [1] that has been raised previously:

   "If there are others who feel that Mykyta's efforts are worth our time, by
    all means speak up and I'm happy to back down here."

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg02224.html

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:27:28 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of SM
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 8:39 AM
> To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [apps-discuss] Designating Apps Area related RFCs as Historic (was: Designating SUPDUP-related RFCs as Historic
> 
> I suggest that:
> 

+1; please prepare an omnibus action to do all the cleanup you want to do rather than doing them all as tiny batches or one-offs.  The time savings will be enormous.

> 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg02224.html

-MSK

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 06:19:24 +0300

07.07.2011 18:39, SM wrote:
>> RFC 4450 was an effort of bulk reclassification, as mentioned there.  
>> My proposal is to historicize 4 RFCs.  It is caused by a simple 
>> omission when moving RFC 734 to Historic.
While I understand that you encourage me to perform the bulk deprecation 
of Apps-related RFCs, I personally don't think I am technically 
knowledgeable enough to perform such work.  Deciding on deprecating the 
RFC required its careful reading and deep technical understanding of its 
current use and/or its relationships with other RFCs.  My expertise is 
mostly narrowly-skoped, and I am afraid such work will be impossible for me.

When I face some RFC which is obviously obsolete, I propose its 
reclassifying to Historic.  That's what with SUPDUP.  This is an obvious 
omission when historicizing RFC 734.  But I don't think I'll be able to 
propose something worthwhile if I undertake checking up and revising all 
published PSs.

Thanks,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 03:54:57 -0700

Hi Mykyta,
At 20:19 07-07-2011, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>While I understand that you encourage me to perform the bulk 
>deprecation of Apps-related RFCs, I personally don't think I am 
>technically knowledgeable enough to perform such work.  Deciding on 
>deprecating the RFC required its careful reading and deep technical 
>understanding of its current use and/or its relationships with other 
>RFCs.  My expertise is mostly narrowly-skoped, and I am afraid such 
>work will be impossible for me.

I am saying that you could add the RFCs you would like to see 
reclassified to a list.  Pick a long duration, not every few months, 
before posting the list and asking for feedback.  I am not 
encouraging you to do that.

I would discourage you from performing the bulk deprecation (going 
through all PS) of Apps-related RFCs as people will oppose that.  As 
you mentioned, the work requires careful reading and deep technical 
understanding of the work.  That entails getting the expertise of 
other participants.  Based on the comments that have been posted to 
this list, it doesn't seem that it is viewed as a worthwhile effort.

>reclassifying to Historic.  That's what with SUPDUP.  This is an 
>obvious omission when historicizing RFC 734.  But I don't think I'll 
>be able to propose something worthwhile if I undertake checking up 
>and revising all published PSs.

Yes.  But it has been mentioned that it is book-keeping work.  You 
don't want to have that on your track record.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 20:30:26 +0200

On 8 July 2011 12:54, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:

> But it has been mentioned that it is book-keeping work.
> You don't want to have that on your track record.

IBTD, cleaning up the mess left by others is very important
work, e.g., the FTP URI draft is AFAIK the last missing
piece to finally get rid of RFC 1783 references in other
documents.

The "bulk deprecation" some years ago was brilliant, on
the same level as "ABNF to STD".  I certainly hope that the
SMTP + message format authors will soon do the bookkeeping
work to fix the minor errata in their documents and publish
them as STDs, you know what the "current" STDs still are.

I have not the faintest idea what "SUPDUP" is or was, and
I won't check it -- the risk that I like it and/or waste
time with it is too high.  But if somebody has the time to
clean up "SUPDUP" for hopefully sound reasons I would not
wish to stand in the way claiming that work done by others
wastes my time.

-Frank

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 07:18:59 +0300

> piece to finally get rid of RFC 1783 references in other
There is a 'file' URI scheme specified in RFC 1738, which isn't 
separately specified yet.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 09:10:43 +0200

> separately specified yet.

ACK, noted on <http://omniplex.blogspot.com/>.