"Deprecate"

t.p. <daedulus@btconnect.com> Thu, 29 August 2013 11:57 UTC

Return-Path: <daedulus@btconnect.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10B9B21F8DA3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 04:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AkCCCZYd1sVJ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 04:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from co1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (co1ehsobe006.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.189]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7162121F9B4B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 04:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail198-co1-R.bigfish.com (10.243.78.226) by CO1EHSOBE004.bigfish.com (10.243.66.67) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:57:35 +0000
Received: from mail198-co1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail198-co1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A33B5B400C7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:57:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.254.197; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:DB3PRD0711HT001.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -11
X-BigFish: PS-11(z56f4kz9371I542I1432Izz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz1de098h1033IL17326ah186068h8275bh8275dh1de097hz2dh2a8h5a9h839h947hd24hf0ah1177h1179h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah139eh13b6h1441h1504h1537h162dh1631h1758h17f1h184fh1898h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dc1h1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1e23h304l1d11m1155h)
Received: from mail198-co1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail198-co1 (MessageSwitch) id 1377777453537557_28178; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:57:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CO1EHSMHS002.bigfish.com (unknown [10.243.78.249]) by mail198-co1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81009720201 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:57:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from DB3PRD0711HT001.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (157.56.254.197) by CO1EHSMHS002.bigfish.com (10.243.66.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:57:32 +0000
Received: from DBXPRD0611HT003.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (157.56.254.85) by pod51017.outlook.com (10.255.183.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.353.4; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:57:20 +0000
Message-ID: <001301cea4ae$ccde2b60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.p." <daedulus@btconnect.com>
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: "Deprecate"
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:56:24 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Originating-IP: [157.56.254.85]
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:57:53 -0000

I recently saw 'deprecate' used in an IANA Considerations and turned to
"IANA Considerations" [RFC5226] to see how it was defined only to find
no mention of it there.  I am used to the term from SMI, as quoted
below, but that seems not quite right, in that a deprecated IANA entry
never disappears, as in
http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-number
s-5

Are there other, perhaps better definitions of the term 'deprecated' in
use outside SMI (and yes, I know about praying nuns!)?

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: "IPv6 Maintanence" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 3:32 PM
Subject: "Deprecate"


> At the mike a moment ago, I referred to an existing formal definition
of "deprecate". For the record, the reference is to RFC 1158, which
reads:
>
> 3.1.  Deprecated Objects
>
>    In order to better prepare implementors for future changes in the
>    MIB, a new term "deprecated" may be used when describing an object.
>    A deprecated object in the MIB is one which must be supported, but
>    one which will most likely be removed from the next version of the
>    MIB (e.g., MIB-III).
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>