IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [newtrk] Last Call comments on draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment-01.txt

"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Wed, 09 November 2005 03:12 UTC

Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EZgNU-00048l-12 for newtrk-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 22:12:00 -0500
Received: from mailapps.uoregon.edu (mailapps.uoregon.edu [128.223.142.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07647 for <newtrk-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 22:11:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailapps.uoregon.edu (IDENT:U2FsdGVkX19nTyksXfG816WpMfSlxl2tPzWjHmhwn2g@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailapps.uoregon.edu (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jA938QsI012716; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 19:08:26 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mailapps.uoregon.edu (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id jA938Qom012715; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 19:08:26 -0800
Received: from smtpout1.bayarea.net (smtpout1.bayarea.net [209.128.95.10]) by mailapps.uoregon.edu (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jA938PTo012711 for <newtrk@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 19:08:25 -0800
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (shell4.bayarea.net [209.128.82.1]) by smtpout1.bayarea.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id jA938WCO017587 for <newtrk@lists.uoregon.edu>; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 19:08:32 -0800
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shell4.bayarea.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id jA938OTR004119; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 19:08:24 -0800
Received: from localhost (heard@localhost) by shell4.bayarea.net (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) with ESMTP id jA938MkM004114; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 19:08:23 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: shell4.bayarea.net: heard owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 19:08:22 -0800
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
X-Sender: heard@shell4.bayarea.net
To: New Track <newtrk@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: [newtrk] Last Call comments on draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment-01.txt
In-Reply-To: <436E1D8B.3050709@zurich.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10511081856260.1618-100000@shell4.bayarea.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: owner-newtrk@lists.uoregon.edu
Precedence: bulk

>>>>> On Sun, 6 Nov 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
BEC> AD hat on.
BEC> 
BEC> Since none of these were copied to the WG, here is
BEC> a compilation of the Last Call comments, including responses
BEC> to IANA's question.
BEC> 
BEC> I request the authors and WG to reach consensus on
BEC> 
BEC> 1. whether to remove the 5 RFCs mentioned by Orly from the list
BEC> (note his second message at the end that only mentions two of them).
        ^^^
        her

On Sun, 6 Nov 2005, Pekka Savola wrote:
PS> I support removing 1471, 1472, 1473 from the list; PPP-related MIBs 
PS> could be used more widely now and in the future as well.
PS> 
PS> I disagree with 1381, 1382 -- these are MIBs on X.25.  I doubt anyone 
PS> is building new products with these; the fact that they're supported 
PS> in existing products does not take these "away" in any sense.  But if 
PS> folks want to remove them from the list, I don't object.

There probably won't be any new X.25 implementations, but there may well
be new products built with existing code, since it's still used to carry
TL1 messages in some telecom environments.

BEC> 2. how to respond to IANA

PS> The best seems to keep the reference to the existing RFCs but add a 
PS> note like '(Historic, see RFC XXXX)' beside the assignments.

I disagree with this, and emphatically agree with Harald's comment
below ... IANA should not do anything at all to the registries since
it creates work but serves no purpose.  The assignments themselves
won't be changed, and people can and should go elsewhere to find out
the status of the RFCs.

BEC> If some RFCs are removed, I would like to see a revised I-D,
BEC> since it would be very confusing to have them removed during
BEC> the editorial process.

Agreed.

BEC>     Brian
BEC> 
BEC> -------- Original Message --------
BEC> Subject: Re: [newtrk] Last Call: 'Getting rid of the cruft: an experiment to	identify obsolete standards document' to 
BEC> Informational RFC
BEC> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:35:25 -0500
BEC> From: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@mcsr-labs.org>
BEC> To: <iesg@ietf.org>
BEC> References: <E1ET2Hy-0007gQ-1l@newodin.ietf.org>
BEC> 
BEC> I support this action, FWIW...
BEC> 
BEC> Spencer
BEC> 
BEC> -------- Original Message --------
BEC> Subject: FW: FW: Last Call: 'Getting rid of the cruft: an experiment to	identify obsolete standards document' to Informational RFC
BEC> Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 23:26:27 +0200
BEC> From: Orly Nicklass <orly_n@rad.com>
BEC> To: <iesg@ietf.org>
BEC> 
BEC> 
BEC> - 1381, 1382:
BEC> - 1471, 1472, 1473:
BEC> are still in active use by some of our products.
BEC> 
BEC> -------- Original Message --------
BEC> Subject: RE: Last Call: 'Getting rid of the cruft: an experiment to identify	obsolete standards document' to Informational RFC 
BEC> [I06-051024-0011]
BEC> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:44:53 -0700
BEC> From: iana-drafts@icann.org
BEC> Reply-To: iana-drafts@icann.org
BEC> To: iesg@ietf.org
BEC> CC: harald@alvestrand.no, sob@harvard.edu, lear@cisco.com
BEC> 
BEC> 
BEC> IESG:
BEC> 
BEC> The IANA has reviewed the following Internet-Draft which is in Last
BEC> Call:  draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment-01.txt,  and has the following
BEC> with regards to the publication of this document:
BEC> 
BEC> Upon approval of this document the IANA will review all the IANA registries and update the references to be this document for 
BEC> the all documents described in section 3.  Should all the actual assignments also be marked as OBSOLETE or should the reference 
BEC> only be changed?
BEC> 
BEC> Thank you.
BEC> 
BEC> Michelle Cotton
BEC> (on behalf of IANA)
BEC> 
BEC> -------- Original Message --------
BEC> Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Getting rid of the cruft: an experiment to identify obsolete standards document' to Informational RFC 
BEC> [I06-051024-0011]
BEC> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:27:50 +0200
BEC> From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
BEC> To: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
BEC> CC: iana-drafts@icann.org, harald@alvestrand.no, sob@harvard.edu
BEC> References: <200510250344.j9P3ir4i027366@g13.icann.org> <435DC75C.1050700@zurich.ibm.com>
BEC> 
BEC> Michelle,
BEC> 
BEC> My recommendation would be to simply add the notation "Historic" to the
BEC> reference.  Or if you like,  Historic, see RFCs (original, cruft).  Just
BEC> because these documents are marked HISTORIC doesn't mean someone out
BEC> there isn't using them.  We don't make that claim and there's no need to
BEC> cause those people grief.
BEC> 
BEC> There is potentially a separate effort that should be undertaken to
BEC> attempt to clean up some of the IANA databases.  For example, I'm pretty
BEC> sure that HEMS implementations never got out of labs.  And SGMP is listed.
BEC> 
BEC> What do you think?
BEC> 
BEC> Eliot
BEC> 
BEC> 
BEC> -------- Original Message --------
BEC> Subject: RE: Last Call: 'Getting rid of the cruft: an experiment to identify	obsolete standards document' to Informational RFC 
BEC> [I06-051024-0011]
BEC> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 05:38:09 -0400 (EDT)
BEC> From: sob@harvard.edu (Scott Bradner)
BEC> To: iana-drafts@icann.org
BEC> CC: harald@alvestrand.no, iesg@ietf.org, lear@cisco.com
BEC> 
BEC> 
BEC> I hnk that the references should be changed and that is all that
BEC> should happen - I do not think teh status of the assignments should
BEC> change
BEC> 
BEC> Scott
BEC> 
BEC> 
BEC> -------- Original Message --------
BEC> Subject: RE: Last Call: 'Getting rid of the cruft: an experiment to identify obsolete standards document' to Informational RFC 
BEC> [I06-051024-0011]
BEC> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 05:44:05 -0700
BEC> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
BEC> To: iana-drafts@icann.org, iesg@ietf.org
BEC> CC: sob@harvard.edu, lear@cisco.com
BEC> References: <200510250344.j9P3ir4i027366@g13.icann.org>
BEC> 
BEC> My immediate thought would be that IANA should not change the references in
BEC> the registries at all - the correct interpretation of the values in the
BEC> registries is still the defining RFC, not the one that declares them
BEC> Historical.
BEC> 
BEC> I believe the port number registry, for instance, has many references to
BEC> documents that are not standards-track RFCs already.
BEC> 
BEC> If you want to add annotations saying "Historical" to such references,
BEC> that's reasonable, but then you should also add "Informational",
BEC> "Experimental" or "Standards-track" to the other references in the
BEC> registries - and as far as I know, there's no such marking now.
BEC> 
BEC> Don't make work you don't have to.....
BEC> 
BEC>                                Harald
BEC> 
BEC> 
BEC> 
BEC> -------- Original Message --------
BEC> Subject: RE: Last Call: 'Getting rid of the cruft: an experiment to identify	obsolete standards document' to Informational RFC 
BEC> [I06-051024-0011]
BEC> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:12:29 -0400 (EDT)
BEC> From: sob@harvard.edu (Scott Bradner)
BEC> To: harald@alvestrand.no, iana-drafts@icann.org, iesg@ietf.org
BEC> CC: sob@harvard.edu, lear@cisco.com
BEC> 
BEC>  > the registries at all - the correct interpretation of the values in the=20
BEC>  > registries is still the defining RFC, not the one that declares them=20
BEC>  > Historical.
BEC> 
BEC> good point
BEC> 
BEC> Scott
BEC> 
BEC> 
BEC> 
BEC> -------- Original Message --------
BEC> Subject: FW: [newtrk] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment-00.txt
BEC> Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:43:46 +0200
BEC> From: Orly Nicklass <orly_n@rad.com>
BEC> To: <iesg@ietf.org>
BEC> 
BEC> - RFC1471 - RFC1473 - are used by our products
BEC> 
BEC> (end of Last Call comments)

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status