Moving Outdated TCP Extensions and TCP-Related Documents to Historic or Informational Status
draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed-03

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for producing this. Anything that helps new implementers understand  what they can ignore in TCP is great!

I have one nit you might want to consider. There are a couple of descriptions like

  o  [RFC0675] U, "Specification of Internet Transmission Control
      Program" was replaced by the final TCP specification [RFC0793]

that refer to "the final TCP specification". I know what you mean, but given that TCPM has producing an RFC 793 bis specification as a current milestone, RFC 793 may not be "final"!

[Ballot comment]
Regarding RFC 6013, wouldn't implementations of an experimental spec be expected to use experimental code points? It seems to me like the last two bullets of explanation would be sufficient without the first one.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this clean-up document.

The first part of the sentence is obvious, right?

  For the content of the documents itself, the reader is referred
  either to the corresponding RFC or, for a brief description, to the
  TCP Roadmap document [RFC7414].

I guess you want to say something such as:
  The reader might find brief descriptions of those RFCs in the
  TCP Roadmap document [RFC7414].

If you keep your sentences: itself -> themselves

Editorial
OLD:
  o  [RFC0889] U, "Internet Delay Experiments", which which describes
      experiments with the TCP retransmission timeout calculation


NEW:
  o  [RFC0889] U, "Internet Delay Experiments", which describes
      experiments with the TCP retransmission timeout calculation

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed-03.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: tcpm@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed@ietf.org, mls.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed@tools.ietf.org, pasi.sarolahti@iki.fi, tcpm-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Moving Outdated TCP Extensions and TCP-related Documents to Historic and Informational Status) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the TCP Maintenance and Minor
Extensions WG (tcpm) to consider the following document:
- 'Moving Outdated TCP Extensions and TCP-related Documents to Historic
  and Informational Status'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-01-18. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document reclassifies several TCP extensions and TCP-related
  documents that have either been superseded, have never seen
  widespread use, or are no longer recommended for use to "Historic"
  status.  The affected RFCs are RFC 675, RFC 721, RFC 761, RFC 813,
  RFC 816, RFC 879, RFC 896, RFC 1078, and RFC 6013.  Additionally,
  this document reclassifies RFC 700, RFC 794, RFC 814, RFC 817, RFC
  872, RFC 889, RFC 964, and RFC 1071 to "Informational" status.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(applying the short essay style for write-up)

1. Summary

Document shepherd is Pasi Sarolahti. Responsible Area Director is
Martin Stiemerling.

This document reclassifies old, unused TCP-related RFCs into Historic
status. In addition, a selection of other old RFCs are reclassified as
Informational. It is an administrative document that does not specify
any protocol modifications.


2. Review and Consensus

Document was reviewed by multiple TCPM WG participants. Given its
administrative nature, there has been no controversy over it, and it
is generally supported by the TCPM community.

The inclusion of the TCPMUX document (RFC 1078) raised some discussion
earlier, because implementations of TCPMUX have been reported in some OS
distributions, although it is not in use to our knowledge. There was
consensus in the TCPM WG that because of the operational and
security concerns in TCPMUX, it should also be declared Historic.


3. Intellectual Property

All authors have confirmed that they do not know of any undisclosed IPR
related to this document.


4. Other Points

Because this is an administrative document reclassifying existing
documents, it does not involve new IANA considerations or security
considerations, nor new registries.

ID nits complains about an obsolete normative reference to RFC
761. This can be ignored, because the purpose of this document is to move
RFC 761, along with other documents, to Historic status.