Skip to main content

Getting Rid of the Cruft: Report from an Experiment in Identifying and Reclassifying Obsolete Standards Documents
draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment-03

Yes

(Allison Mankin)
(Brian Carpenter)
(Russ Housley)

No Objection

(Alex Zinin)
(Bert Wijnen)
(Bill Fenner)
(Margaret Cullen)
(Mark Townsley)
(Sam Hartman)
(Scott Hollenbeck)
(Ted Hardie)

Abstain


Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Allison Mankin Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss) Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Alex Zinin Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
David Kessens Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain (2005-12-15) Unknown
I am not clear on how this document fits in the new-trk working group charter.

I also agree with Russ that I am confused about this document:
It is an informational document that describes an experiment ?

I also cannot agree with the conclusions of the experiment:

Basically, declaring success if many documents are reclassified as Historic.

Is this document telling us that the current process actually works and
everything is fine ?

To me this merely is a success from the point of view of a paperpusher.
Yes, we got documents reclassified but did we do any good for the IETF beyond spending a lot of time and resources on this topic ? Does anybody care that we declared documents historic that nobody was using anyways ?

Do we have any clue how we can repeat this so that we won't end up with yet
another large set of cruft in the future ?

This document's status is Informational and I see little harm in publishing it, so I have decided not stand in the way of publication.