INTERNET-DRAFT M. Yevstifeyev Intended Status: Informational November 28, 2010 Expires: June 1, 2011 Pre-IETF RFCs Classifying: Part 2 - RFCs 101-200 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 101-200November 28, 2010 Abstract This document classifies pre-IETF RFCS 101-200 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. Best Current Practice RFCs Assignments . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3. Historic RFCs Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Author's Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 M. Yevstifeyev Expires June 1, 2011 [Page 2] INTERNET DRAFT Pre-IETF RFCs Classifying: RFCs 101-200November 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 101-200 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 101 [RFC101] RFC 108 [RFC108] RFC 124 [RFC124] RFC 132 [RFC132] RFC 160 [RFC160] RFC 164 [RFC164] RFC 170 [RFC170]. 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 101-200November 28, 2010 2.2. Best Current Practice RFCs Assignments RFC Editor is asked to mark the following RFC as Best Current Practice: RFC 154 [RFC154]. Note: This action needs IESG agreement. No action should be taken according to this section without IESG agreement. 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 Best Current Practice 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 101-200November 28, 2010 2.3. Historic RFCs Assignments RFC Editor is asked to mark all RFCs, not mentioned in Sections 2.1, 2.2, which enter in the RFC 101-200 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 5] INTERNET DRAFT Pre-IETF RFCs Classifying: RFCs 101-200November 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 [RFC100] Karp, P., "Categorization and guide to NWG/RFCs", RFC 100, February 1971. [RFC101] Watson, R., "Notes on the Network Working Group meeting, Urbana, Illinois, February 17, 1971", RFC 101, February 1971. [RFC108] Watson, R., "Attendance list at the Urbana NWG meeting, February 17-19, 1971", RFC 108, March 1971. [RFC124] Melvin, J., "Typographical error in RFC 107", RFC 124, April 1971. [RFC132] White, J., "Typographical Error in RFC 107", RFC 132, April 1971. [RFC154] Crocker, S., "Exposition Style", RFC 154, May 1971. [RFC160] Network Information Center. Stanford Research Institute, "RFC brief list", RFC 160, May 1971. [RFC164] Heafner, J., "Minutes of Network Working Group meeting, 5/16 through 5/19/71", RFC 164, May 1971. [RFC170] Network Information Center. Stanford Research Institute, "RFC List by Number", RFC 170, June 1971. M. Yevstifeyev Expires June 1, 2011 [Page 6] INTERNET DRAFT Pre-IETF RFCs Classifying: RFCs 101-200November 28, 2010 Author's Addresses Mykyta Yevstifeyev 8 Kuzovkov St., flat 25, Kotovsk, Ukraine EMail: evnikita2@gmail.com M. Yevstifeyev Expires June 1, 2011 [Page 7]