Re: [apps-discuss] Revising Full Standards

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Wed, 26 January 2011 12:18 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A52703A69AB for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 04:18:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.800, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pO2mKJDOE+pO for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 04:18:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CF183A69B1 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 04:18:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [188.28.132.149] (188.28.132.149.threembb.co.uk [188.28.132.149]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <TUARrQADL3Ig@rufus.isode.com>; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:21:03 +0000
Message-ID: <4D401196.8050903@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:20:38 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimrGi0xHoypn=UX2=C-MtFoX6RzvUhVx49DdE_w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimrGi0xHoypn=UX2=C-MtFoX6RzvUhVx49DdE_w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revising Full Standards
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:18:05 -0000

Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:

>Hello all,
>
Hi Mykyta,

>There are a number of Full Standards (STD20-26), that, IMO, need
>revsising.  Firstly, all of these documents define the protocols only
>for TCP and UDP, and that might be useful to define them for such
>protocols, as DCCP or SCTP.  Moreover, in spite of being the Full
>Standards, it does not meet the current practices and view of Internet
>Standards.
>
I haven't looked at specified Full Standards you mentioned above, so I 
am just commenting in general.

>So I'd like to ask whether making docs to obsolete these standards
>make any sense?  Or it would be OK just to update the corresponding
>dosuments for DCCP and SCTP?
>  
>
I think doing the latter is usually the preferred way. That wouldn't 
invalidate Full Standard status of documents for transport protocols 
they were originally specified for.

>  
>