All
First, we want to thank Matthijs on putting together such a straight forward and complete document. After discussing this amongst ourselves, and with our AD, and reading the specifics here: https://www.ietf.org/blog/iesg-statement-designating-rfcs-historic/ We are going to take the path of Step 2, which is: An individual or a working group posts an Internet Draft containing an explanation of the reason for the status change. The I-D is discussed and iterated as usual for I-Ds. At some point, it is sent to an appropriate AD to request publication. The AD creates a status-change document, with an explanation that points to the I-D. The I-D and the status-change are then last-called together, after which the IESG evaluates and ballots on both. If the change is approved, the content of the I-D is moved into the status-change document, and the I-D is marked as "dead", having served its purpose. This method is best when the explanation is not extensive, but needs document discussion and development. The Chairs adopt this as a WG Document, and we feel this is something straightforward enough that any editorial comments can be in within the next three (3) weeks, wrapping up at the end of IETF105, 26 July 2019. If anyone feels this is too short a time, please speak now. Otherwise, please send any editorial comments to the authors and let's move DLV to the dustbin of history. thanks tim
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
