Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed-03.txt> (Moving Outdated TCP Extensions and TCP-related Documents to Historic and Informational Status) to Informational RFC

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 1/4/2016 12:53 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 07:31:13 -0800, The IESG said:
>>
>> The IESG has received a request from the TCP Maintenance and Minor
>> Extensions WG (tcpm) to consider the following document:
>> - 'Moving Outdated TCP Extensions and TCP-related Documents to Historic
>>    and Informational Status'
>>   <draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed-03.txt> as Informational RFC
>>
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>> [e-mail] mailing lists by 2016-01-18. Exceptionally, comments may be
>> sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the
>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> The draft says in section 2.1:
> 
>    o  [RFC1078] U, "TCP Port Service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)" should be
>       deprecated, because:
> ....
>       *  There are no known client-side deployments.
> 
> SGI's Data Migration Facility does in fact use tcpmux on port 1 for client
> systems to contact the DMF server for out-of-band administrative functions.
> However, this usage is (as far as I know, after been the admin of a DMF system
> for 5 years) strictly confined to intercommunication between the clients and
> server of a DMF cluster, and I know of no other vendors or packages that
> try to talk to DMF over tcpmux (everything uses the SGI-provided DMF client
> tools to do the heavy lifting, and then operates on the output of the tool).
> 
> Whether that should be sufficient to deter moving RFC1078 to deprecated is a
> question for somebody else to answer.

This sounds like an opportunity for SGI to shift over to DNS-SD.

We can change the line about "no known" to "only one known". We could
refer to DNS-SD going to PS as a rationale for obsoleting TCPMUX if
necessary, IMO.

Joe