Subject: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic

From: "Bert Wijnen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 98 23:22:18 DST

Ref:  Your note of Thu, 30 Jul 1998 15:41:03 -0400

Subject: Re:   Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic

Maria writes:
> Thanks, Bob and Harald, for explaining the procedure. Yes, there is
> work to do if we want the RFC to advance and my sense is that there's
> noone willing to help with it. Correct me if I'm wrong by
> volunteering. A change to Historic will not make the MIB less useful
> (or make any referencing documents less correct) and I doubt many
> customers check the standards process status when evaluating products.
>
Historic may give the impression it is NOT used or no longer used.
Maybe we can move it to "INFORMATIONAL". We do not have a category
of "good enough"... and as far as I can tell INFORMATIONAL comes
closest to "good enough".

When moving to HISTORIC you need do nothing.
When moving to INFORMATIONAL, you may have to add things like
security section and such.

Bert

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:06:53 -0400 (EDT)

>Bert, you are quite right. Would "Informational" status relieve
>people's concerns? If not, please speak up.

i also agree ... informational is the correct disposition

regards,
jdc

---

From: "C. Adam Stolinski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 09:06:36 -0700

"Informational" would certainly resolve my concerns.  If there is some
admin WG work to get this done - I will volunteer to participate.

Regards,
Adam

-----Original Message-----
From: Maria Greene <[email-masked]>
To: Bert Wijnen <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, July 30, 1998 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic

>Maria