The MPLS WG Archive

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

the question has been asked about reclassifying a already published
RFC from Proposed Standard to Informational (i.e. de-standardization)

A/ I do not know of a case where this has been done
B/ RFC 2026 talks about moving to historic not info

(in my opinion moving to historc should be done where there is
a specific strong reason (or reasons) such as security (see RFC 1923
for an example of stating reasons).)

my own opinion is that it would set a very precedent to de-standardize at all
and a very bad one to do such a short time after the RFC was published

I expect we can tell for sure in 4 or 5 years how a technology will be
received but I doubt that we can tell much in just 6 months

I think the more important question is about on-going CR-LDP work --
should be CR-LPD work be relegated to non-standards track?

specific questions:
A/ should IETF working group charters be modified to remove a requirement
   to work on CR-LPD technologies?
B/ if there is CR-LDP work already in progress, what should happen to it?
C/ if a working group requests publication of RFCs about CR-LPD
   technology on the standards track what should we do?
D/ if someone requests independent publication of RFCs about CR-LPD
   technology on the standards track (as permitted by RFC 2026) what
   should we do?

(I see no way for the IETF to refuse to publish CR-LDP related infor or
experimental RFCs - the IETF is not in teh business of suppressing 
technology)

Scott