IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Old transport-layer protocols to Historic?

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Sun, 09 January 2011 06:25 UTC

Return-Path: <evnikita2@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04D3D3A6931; Sat, 8 Jan 2011 22:25:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.352
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.352 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.714, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 RbZtrRl7Q4Dk; Sat, 8 Jan 2011 22:25:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 536AD3A6930; Sat, 8 Jan 2011 22:25:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by bwz12 with SMTP id 12so18269244bwz.31 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 22:27:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type; bh=nPaYKDFudcUAte1fKjw9HUqBtT3+L0gNnd4LmvkEAWQ=; b=vIGV+ygifG67hlg4mXJSeLL5le5IBcYAzhumDjnnYj01OCwbVpWmvgW2skyCK2wOfN uCBuM98G7xhyRBKh4hxZ4EuNbDy93afm4c2vUhcbK2boZt5+AVRz7dGdDrP+tyoArowl Ga/mme0FW2dLzapfDLk1pNofai86qe7QsIpSA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type; b=bf+VmxiJVGwObfrv9SZrMnoUy6z5EwBh99lQzRFTL9qTQaxKnbAzpjS2WjvI/TBtwN +u5XJSVBFl/i4Ibls9gbzV9qBGDBBs1LBV1Hzcx86+7LTb+/x35uMDF+gxKgdZuaTKP5 8YgYbwwWARf9mlUCNf2YlBZs/swPQGHq5Lacg=
Received: by 10.204.114.81 with SMTP id d17mr13813030bkq.135.1294554458007; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 22:27:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v25sm15051990bkt.18.2011.01.08.22.27.36 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 08 Jan 2011 22:27:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D29556A.6060902@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 08:27:54 +0200
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Old transport-layer protocols to Historic?
References: <4D2556C9.9020901@gmail.com> <AFC50009-6908-4AAB-89FB-45C776F40BE2@gmail.com> <4D2842B8.7090100@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D2842B8.7090100@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080703050203060404030302"
Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 06:25:37 -0000

08.01.2011 12:55, Mykyta Yevstifeyev ?????:
> 07.01.2011 21:53, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> Mykyta,
>>
>>
>> On Jan 5, 2011, at 9:44 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> There have been a discussion on tsvwg mailing list about old transport layer protocols - exactly IRTP (RFC938), RDP (RFC908,1151) and NETBLT (RFC998). Initially there have been proposed to define IANA considerations for them. But after a discussion it was found out that it would be better to move them to Historic. I am writing to request more wider discussion on this topic.
>> I see little value even thinking about this.  It's looks like a "make work" project to me.  Just because something is "old", doesn't mean it is "historic" in the sense the label is used in the IETF.
>>
>> Regarding RDP (RFC908, RFC1151), of which I am one of the authors, both are currently labeled as Experimental.  I do not see any reason to change that.
>
Bob, all,

Personally I don't support the idea to move the RDP to Historic. The 
initial idea was to defined IANA procedures for assignment RDP ports, 
that remains undefined. But when I presented the corresponding draft to 
tsvwg, many claimed that it would be better to move it ti Historic 
rather than specify IANA procedures for it. Currently, there is a draft 
on this topic:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yevstifeyev-rdp-ports-registry-02

My initial idea was just that.  And you, Bob, do you find this topic 
interesting (RDP ports assignment) as the developer of RDP?

Mykyta Yevstifeyev


>> Bob
>>
>>
>>> There is quite strong consensus that IRTP should be Historic. There is a registered draft on this topic:
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-tsvwg-irtp-to-historic/
>>>
>>> But as for others it should be discussed. Moreover, maybe anyone knows some other old transport-layer protocols that are no longer in use?
>>>
>>> Please copy tour answer totsvwg@ietf.org
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>> Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ietf mailing list
>>> Ietf@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email