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

[Ballot discuss]
If approving this document means moving all specs in the list to Historic, then I have to disagree. A number of documents (e.g. RIP DC extensions, PPP over X.25) are implemented and used in real-life networks.

If the intention is to have an archival copy of the experiment's results, then the document should be a bit more clear that it is not attempting to move all those specs to Historic summarily.

List of questionable retirements:

>      RFC1378 (The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP))
>      RFC1469 (IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks)
>      RFC1582 (Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits)
>      RFC1584 (Multicast Extensions to OSPF)
>      RFC1598 (PPP in X.25)
>      RFC1755 (ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM)

Checking with rtg-dir now. Will clear if no one objects.

[Ballot discuss]
If approving this document means moving all specs in the list to Historic, then I have to disagree. A number of documents (e.g. RIP DC extensions, PPP over X.25) are implemented and used in real-life networks.

If the intention is to have an archival copy of the experiment's results, then the document should be a bit more clear that it is not attempting to move all those specs to Historic summarily.

[Ballot discuss]
I believe this was recently referenced in a DSL Forum specification (Technical Report) as a current way handle advertising a single route (or small set of routes) to a CPE when connecting to a BRAS. Please contact David Allan  as DSL Forum Arch & Transport Co-Chair to determine status of this.

      RFC1582 (Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits)

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot discuss]
I find the title of this document confusing.  It is not calling for
  an experiment; rather, it is reporting the results of an experiment.
  I would like to the title reflect this situation.  I am willing tp
  change my ballot position to YES once the title is changed.

IANA Last Call Comments:
Upon approval of this document the IANA will review all the IANA registries and update the references to be this document for the all documents described in section 3.  Should all the actual assignments also be marked as OBSOLETE or should the reference only be changed?