INTERNET-DRAFT M. Yevstifeyev Intended Status: Informational November 28, 2010 Expires: June 1, 2011 Pre-IETF RFCs Classifying: Part 1 - RFCs 1-100 Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html Copyright and License Notice Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. M. Yevstifeyev Expires June 1, 2011 [Page 1] INTERNET DRAFT Pre-IETF RFCs Classifying: RFCs 1-100 November 28, 2010 Abstract This document classifies pre-IETF RFCS 1-100 in accordance with RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Informational RFCs Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Historic RFCs Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Author's Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 M. Yevstifeyev Expires June 1, 2011 [Page 2] INTERNET DRAFT Pre-IETF RFCs Classifying: RFCs 1-100 November 28, 2010 1. Introduction There are near 800 RFCs on the RFC Editor's archive with no definite status. This was caused by the time these RFCs were published at. Early RFCs (also called as 'Pre-IETF') were classified and marked according to RFC 100 [RFC100]. RFC 2026 [RFC2026] mentioned that all RFCs must be classified as 'Standards Track', 'Experimental', 'Informational', 'Best Current Practice' or 'Historic'. In order to conform to this requirements, the series of document, which assign Pre-IETF RFCs to one of the aforementioned status, were made. This document classifies RFCs 1-100 in accordance with RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. 2. RFC Editor Considerations 2.1. Informational RFCs Assignments RFC Editor is asked to mark following RFCs as 'Informational': RFC 21 [RFC21] RFC 37 [RFC37] RFC 63 [RFC63] RFC 77 [RFC77] RFC 84 [RFC84] RFC 100 [RFC100]. The corresponding 'Status of this Memo' section is to be put in these documents. The following disclaimer should also be put in them: "Disclaimer The Informational category was assigned to this RFC in accordance to RFC-to-be. Note that original RFC did not contain the 'Status of this Memo' and this sections." [TO BE REMOVED: RFC Editor note: The RFC-to-be should be changed to the RFC number, assigned to this document.] M. Yevstifeyev Expires June 1, 2011 [Page 3] INTERNET DRAFT Pre-IETF RFCs Classifying: RFCs 1-100 November 28, 2010 2.2. Historic RFCs Assignments RFC Editor is asked to mark all RFCs, not mentioned in Section 2.1, which enter in the RFC 1-100 gap, as Historic. The corresponding 'Status of this Memo' section is to be put in these documents. The following disclaimer should also be put in them: "Disclaimer The Historic category was assigned to this RFC in accordance to RFC- to-be. Note that original RFC did not contain the 'Status of this Memo' and this sections." [TO BE REMOVED: RFC Editor note: The RFC-to-be should be changed to the RFC number, assigned to this document.] M. Yevstifeyev Expires June 1, 2011 [Page 4] INTERNET DRAFT Pre-IETF RFCs Classifying: RFCs 1-100 November 28, 2010 3. Security Considerations Security considerations are not discussed by this document. 4. IANA Considerations IANA has no actions for this document. 5. References 5.1. Normative References [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 5.2. Informative References [RFC21] Cerf, V., "Network meeting", RFC 21, October 1969. [RFC37] Crocker, S., "Network Meeting Epilogue, etc", RFC 37, March 1970. [RFC63] Cerf, V., "Belated Network Meeting Report", RFC 63, July 1970. [RFC77] Postel, J., "Network meeting report", RFC 77, November 1970. [RFC84] North, J., "List of NWG/RFC's 1-80", RFC 84, December 1970. [RFC100] Karp, P., "Categorization and guide to NWG/RFCs", RFC 100, February 1971. Author's Addresses Mykyta Yevstifeyev 8 Kuzovkov St., flat 25, Kotovsk, Ukraine EMail: evnikita2@gmail.com M. Yevstifeyev Expires June 1, 2011 [Page 5]