[Old-standards] Brief Procedural Proposal

[Spencer Dawkins]

Hi, Eliot,

Thanks for setting this list up.

Your proposal looks like a plan. If I understand the details, you're 
punting on actually advancing any of these standards as part of the 
de-crufting?

I actually liked the possibility that we could end up with more actual 
standards, in addition to ending up with fewer cruft-standards, but as 
long as we haven't talked about the number of stops on the standards 
track since, like, Seoul, trying to figure out what might advance to 
standards levels that might or might not exist in some future 2026bis 
based on advancement criteria that might or might not have changed 
does seem premature.

Not to try to coordinate a loosely-coupled process or anything, but if 
you hand out starting numbers, we might not all start at RFC 1, or at 
RFC 2000 :-)

Spencer


> Dear All,
>
> Hello and thanks for joining the mailing list.  I would like to 
> share with you the results of a discussion I had with Harald and see 
> if the following proposed procedure meets with your collective 
> approval.
>
> 1.  Start with a list we'll call the cruft list that contains EVERY 
> document marked "Proposed Standard" that is prior to RFC 2000 and is 
> not obsolete.
>
> 2.  Anyone can by email remove an RFC from the cruft list by simply 
> saying, "please remove RFC xyz from the list".  In doing so, please 
> indicate a brief reason why it should be removed and whether you 
> think the document should be left at Proposed or advanced.
>
> 3.  A few weeks before the next IETF we'll broadcast the list so 
> that others can see if there's anything on it they think should be 
> removed.
>
> 4.  We'll present the list at the next IETF and ask for a last call 
> thereafter.
>
> In the end we'll be left with three lists:
>
> 1.  Documents left on the cruft list that should be moved to 
> Historic.
> 2.  Documents removed from the cruft list that should be left alone.
> 3.  Documents removed from the cruft list that perhaps should be
>     elevated.
>
> In that last case, I propose we not debate procedure on this list as 
> to how documents get elevated, but let that happen on the NEWTRK 
> mailing list.  All we'll say here is that whatever that procedure 
> is, the third group of docs are probably good candidates for trying 
> it.
>
> Finally, if someone wants to remove an RFC from the list and others 
> object, the others should write a small draft indicating why the RFC 
> should be downgraded.  In other words, follow the alternative 
> procedure and gain consensus within the IETF.
>
> The point of this procedure is to shake out as much OBVIOUS dead 
> wood as possible.
>
> If this works well for Proposed, we can next take a gander at Draft.
>
> How does this sound?  If people are okay with this approach, I'll 
> send the list of standards (which you yourselves can generate from 
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/categories/rfc-proposed.html) and I will 
> set up a web page that shows the current status of each doc in 
> question.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eliot
> _______________________________________________
> Old-standards mailing list
> Old-standards at eikenes.alvestrand.no
> http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/old-standards
>