Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC 1072, RFC 1106, RFC 1110, RFC 1145, RFC 1146, RFC 1379, RFC 1644, and RFC 1693 to Historic Status
draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-02

[Ballot comment]
I am ballotting "Yes" on this document, but there are a few issues I
would like the author to consider before the document is passed to
the RFC Editor.

---

Abstract

Please change this text from a "recommendation" to an "action"

---

Surely this is a Historic RFC in its own right? I.e., RFC 1072 et al
are obsoleted by a Historic RFC.

---

Section 2

  The RFC Editor is requested to change the status of the following
  RFCs to Historic [RFC2026]:

I'm confused. Can the status of an existing RFC be changed? I thought
it could only obsoleted.

---

Section 3

This says IANA should mark as "obsolete". Shouldn't you use
"deprecated"?

I think you also need to tell IANA exactly what references they should
place against each deprecated option.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single
IANA Action that needs completion.

In the TCP Option Kind Numbers registry in the Transmission Control
Protocol (TCP) Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-parameters/tcp-parameters.xhtml

The word "obsolete" will be added to the description of the following
TCP option Kind Numbers:

6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15

In each of the option Kind Numbers above a reference to [RFC-to-be] will
be added to the existing reference.

IANA understands that this is the only IANA Action required upon
approval of this document.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110, RFC1145, RFC1146, RFC1263, RFC1379, RFC1644 and RFC1693 to Historic 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 the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110,
  RFC1145, RFC1146, RFC1263, RFC1379, RFC1644 and RFC1693 to Historic
  Status'
  as an 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 2011-02-16. 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.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize/

  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?


Wesley Eddy (Wesley.M.Eddy@nasa.gov) is the document shepherd.  He
has personally reviewed this version and believes it is ready for
forwarding to the IESG for publication.



  (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
        and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
        have been performed? 


The document has had review in the TCPM working group, and the content
of the document is largely based on RFC 4614 which had been through
several reviews in the TCPM working group and in the broader IETF.
The reviews on this document were brief and the working group last
call concluded with very light feedback, but the level of support (and
lack of resistance) is appropriate for the scope of this document,
which simply provides formal movement of several RFCs to Historic
status that had already been mentioned as such in RFC 4614, but
never formally altered with the RFC Editor.


  (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
        AAA, internationalization or XML?


No concerns.


  (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
        issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
        and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
        or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
        has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
        event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
        that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
        concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
        been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
        this issue.


No concerns.



  (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
        represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
        others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
        agree with it? 


There has been no resistance to this document and reasonable support
for it at its inception.  This formalizes document status on several
historic TCP extensions that have ceased to be relevant.



  (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
        separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
        should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
        entered into the ID Tracker.)


No.


  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
        and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
        not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?



IDNits finds obsolete references, but these are spurious as the
documents referenced are mentioned here specifically (and purposefully)
so that they can be moved to Historic.



  (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
        informative? Are there normative references to documents that
        are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
        state? If such normative references exist, what is the
        strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
        so, list these downward references to support the Area
        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].


The references are properly split.



  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
        of the document? If the document specifies protocol
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
        registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
        the document creates a new registry, does it define the
        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
        procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
        reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?



The IANA Considerations are present and clearly instruct IANA on the
marking of several options as "obsolete" on publication of this
document as an RFC.



  (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
        an automated checker?


Not Applicable.



  (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
        Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
        Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
        "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
        announcement contains the following sections:

    Technical Summary
        Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
        and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
        an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
        or introduction.


From abstract:

  This document recommends that several TCP extensions that have never
  seen widespread use be moved to Historic status.  The affected RFCs
  are RFC1072, RFC1106, RFC1110, RFC1145, RFC1146, RFC1263, RFC1379,
  RFC1644 and RFC1693.



    Working Group Summary
        Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
        example, was there controversy about particular points or
        were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
        rough?

Nothing exceptional occurred during the working group process for this
document.


    Document Quality
        Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
        significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
        implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
        merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
        e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
        conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
        there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
        what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
        review, on what date was the request posted?

The document does not define a protocol, it formalizes the moving
of several outdated TCP documents to Historic status.