Re: [apps-discuss] Revising Full Standards

Alexey Melnikov <> Wed, 26 January 2011 12:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A52703A69AB for <>; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 04:18:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.399
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pO2mKJDOE+pO for <>; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 04:18:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CF183A69B1 for <>; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 04:18:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <>; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:21:03 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:20:38 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <>
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 <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revising Full Standards
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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
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.