IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <status-change-ip-versions-5-8-9-to-historic-01.txt> (Moving IP versions 5, 8, and 9 to Historic) to Historic

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 18 March 2016 01:53 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 7C4F612DECB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:53:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id smXeRwwu06tJ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.18.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B1D8E12DEC3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 14815 invoked by uid 0); 18 Mar 2016 01:26:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw2) (10.0.90.83) by gproxy2.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2016 01:26:50 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw2 with id XDSm1s0032SSUrH01DSpYM; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 19:26:49 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=Nal1iQz4 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=7OsogOcEt9IA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=Pa1LLK7PR1yEc7vEPU4A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:Cc:References:To:Subject; bh=YT0Gw2Typ5SqfyuxM3XYrNeM5TIfHGwj3vCQQCgTN4Y=; b=RW8t2a8Y3HDt3yKdsgckg7alhK f1Y88/cZtDh9w61IdHoDNBJ89DAxDfAvRby0u+snlFUxi1GZBmaSnrcv4Qwveopq0yxjWgisZGFPy 79Fj9ZG8VQS10/gem+ADrSxwN;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:52875 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1agjBf-0005m7-QJ; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 19:26:47 -0600
Subject: Re: Last Call: <status-change-ip-versions-5-8-9-to-historic-01.txt> (Moving IP versions 5, 8, and 9 to Historic) to Historic
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <20160317191526.8948.67217.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56EB0FE9.5020602@gmail.com>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <56EB5952.5070601@labn.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 21:26:42 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56EB0FE9.5020602@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/fqmqG8vOvpGO9ovzN6rHAWc_fTY>
Cc: draft-ietf-st2-spec@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pip-architecture@ietf.org, st2-chairs@ietf.org, rfc1347@ietf.org, pip-chairs@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:53:33 -0000


On 3/17/2016 4:13 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> I also recall rumours that some people were actually using ST2 at one point.
> Are we sure that it's totally gone away?

There were a number of ST2 (RFC1190) and ST2+ (RFC1819) deployments at
one point (in Japan, US and Germany).  I don't believe any are still in
operation and historic sounds just fine to me.

Lou
(Co-chair of ST2+ WG, co-editor of RFC1819 -- also worked on and
deployed some ST implementations)

> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
>
> On 18/03/2016 08:15, The IESG wrote:
>> The IESG has received a request from the Internet Engineering Steering
>> Group IETF (iesg) to consider the following document:
>> - 'Moving IP versions 5, 8, and 9 to Historic'
>>   <status-change-ip-versions-5-8-9-to-historic-01.txt> as Historic
>>
>> 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
>> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-04-14. Exceptionally, comments may be
>> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>
>> The file can be obtained via
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-ip-versions-5-8-9-to-historic/
>>
>> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-ip-versions-5-8-9-to-historic/ballot/
>>
>>
>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>>
>>
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email