Mohamed, Was it your intention to have this draft published as an RFC, or to let the status change stand? The reason I'm asking is because reclassification to Historic seems to be handled differently depending upon circumstances. Also, it might be a good idea to reclassify some of the other RFCs mentioned in this draft to Historic, such as 1287, 1380, and 1752. 1550 (referenced in 1752) could also be a candidate.
Greg On Mar 16, 2016, at 08:37 AM, [email protected] wrote: Dear all, Since Lee started with 4, what about 5, 8 and 9. Comments are more than welcome. Cheers, Med -----Message d'origine----- De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Envoyé : mercredi 16 mars 2016 16:34 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; JACQUENET Christian IMT/OLN Objet : New Version Notification for draft-boucadair-ip-version-5-8-9- historic-00.txt A new version of I-D, draft-boucadair-ip-version-5-8-9-historic-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Mohamed Boucadair and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-boucadair-ip-version-5-8-9-historic Revision: 00 Title: Reclassification of ST (IP version 5), PIP (IP version 8) and TUBA (IP version 9) to Historic Document date: 2016-03-16 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 5 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-boucadair-ip- version-5-8-9-historic-00.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-ip- version-5-8-9-historic/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-ip-version-5- 8-9-historic-00 Abstract: This document reclassifies ST (IP version 5), PIP (IP version 8) and TUBA (IP version 9) to Historic status. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat _______________________________________________ sunset4 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
_______________________________________________ sunset4 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
