IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Pre-IETF RFCs to Historic (not really proposing)

Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com> Fri, 16 September 2011 03:22 UTC

Return-Path: <glenzorn@gmail.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 62DEA11E80B3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 20:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.019
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
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 lt+M-M3r5h9h for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 20:22:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A797B11E80B2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 20:22:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gyd12 with SMTP id 12so3077059gyd.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 20:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:subject:message-id:importance:from:to:cc:mime-version :content-type; bh=OMEMkL8zd6Q8ccYY/tuRKf+O/+spJZT9HaNzmFKhdEQ=; b=jWDtbDKozLkNXAwd1jwvxHNm+01KtJgqbFdLMBKBA/ErmzqZrlutbyTzm4xy16558S iZbEYVfFMKh/KqIEUwqYox2I4DcZX8pUQ0eWVsQCxuXMTUml+T8KhVoU8KFYcww149i7 ikNh83I8uO/XeZv6wyGtUZh6rAXCn8IFM8M5E=
Received: by 10.101.179.5 with SMTP id g5mr1776517anp.130.1316143466079; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 20:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([180.210.216.74]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h20sm4265214ann.7.2011.09.15.20.24.20 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 15 Sep 2011 20:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:24:33 +0700
Subject: Re: Pre-IETF RFCs to Historic (not really proposing)
Message-ID: <lf16r9pwg1eqdt9ge82ks276.1316143473826@email.android.com>
Importance: normal
From: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com>
To: moore@network-heretics.com, hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--_com.android.email_141665918190616"
Cc: sob@harvard.edu, ietf@ietf.org
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: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 03:22:15 -0000

Indeed.  In fact there is a conversation currently on the pppext WG list in which certain people are claiming that PPP (?!)	is obsolete, demonstrating that even subject-matter "experts" are often clueless about what's happening in the real world...

Sent from Samsung tablet

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> wrote:

On Sep 15, 2011, at 3:17 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:

> On 15 September 2011 20:39, Scott O Bradner wrote:
> 
>> as Keith points out - a round of this type of effort was
>> undertaken by the newtrk working group a while back
> 
> About five years back, IIRC, and with some limiting parameters.
> I think this clean up was brilliant, and a new round with new
> parameters would be a very good thing.
> 
>> I will note that it took quite a bit of work to ensure that
>> technologies were actually unused
> 
> Again IIRC, you somehow created a list of "candidates", and
> folks could object if they felt that something is still used.

Problem is, the IETF isn't really big enough to have a good idea about whether some technologies are still used.

Example: A few years ago I started doing some work in an industry which makes extensive use of 3-way FTP, because they have very large files that they have to move around, and they need for those transfers to be mediated by 3rd parties.  IIRC, the prevailing view in the IETF ftpext working group was that 3-way FTP was obsolete and should be deprecated due to security issues and because it wouldn't work through NATs.

Keith

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email