RE: [newtrk] Genuine public comment [Re: List of Old Standards to be retired]
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com> Thu, 16 December 2004 14:47 UTC
Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (root@darkwing.uoregon.edu [128.223.142.13]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA28430 for <newtrk-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:47:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from darkwing.uoregon.edu (majordom@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iBGEHTWb012942; Thu, 16 Dec 2004 06:17:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id iBGEHTj2012939; Thu, 16 Dec 2004 06:17:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from robin.verisign.com (robin.verisign.com [65.205.251.75]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iBGEHTNd012928 for <newtrk@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 16 Dec 2004 06:17:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MOU1WNEXC04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (mailer6.verisign.com [65.205.251.33]) by robin.verisign.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iBGEHOLD015388; Thu, 16 Dec 2004 06:17:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mou1wnexc04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <WPB92H66>; Thu, 16 Dec 2004 06:17:24 -0800
Message-ID: <C6DDA43B91BFDA49AA2F1E473732113E010BEE2D@mou1wnexm05.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
To: 'Brian E Carpenter' <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Cc: "'newtrk@lists.uoregon.edu'" <newtrk@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: [newtrk] Genuine public comment [Re: List of Old Standards to be retired]
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 06:17:17 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-newtrk@lists.uoregon.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
Does this type of use matter? The documents will still be there to be consulted if needed. All Obsolete means is that the IETF is not going to be maintaining or revising the spec and is no longer able to vouch for the specs being complete &ct. I don't think that anyone would suggest keeping the PEM specs alive, even though they are in fact still used by the SEC. Phill > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-newtrk@lists.uoregon.edu > [mailto:owner-newtrk@lists.uoregon.edu] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter > Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 8:52 AM > Cc: 'newtrk@lists.uoregon.edu' > Subject: [newtrk] Genuine public comment [Re: List of Old > Standards to be retired] > > > It's obvious when I look at this list and see things like > the FDDI MIB on it that we cannot confine the poll on usage > to the small world of the IETF. Most Boeing 777 aircraft > still use FDDI, for example; I have no idea whether the MIB > flies with them, but I'd hate us to obsolete it without being certain. > > Gory details: > http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/av/show_mag.cgi?pub=av&mon=11 > 01&file=1101productfocus.htm > > I think we are really going to need a widely advertised > public comment period for the final list. > > Brian > > Eliot Lear wrote: > > Hello, > > > > This is an update from the Old Standards experiment. Below > are a list > > of proposed standards that are candidates to be obsoleted. The old > > standards mailing list has vetted out a good number, but > still a good > > number remains. We are looking for experts who can say > affirmatively > > whether a standard is implemented and in use. In > particular, many of > > the docs class into four categories: > > > > - telnet options > > - MIBs (for X.25, 802.5, FDDI, and other) > > - SOCKS > > - Interaction with other protocol stacks (ISO, IPX, Appelalk, SNA, > > etc) > > > > If you see a document on the list below and you know it to > be in use, > > would you please reply to this message indicating the RFC > number, and > > whether you believe the doc should be advanced beyond > proposed? Also, > > if you know of work to update anything on the list below, > please include > > that. A note along these lines is generally sufficient to remove a > > document from the list below. > > > > > > RFC0698 Telnet extended ASCII option > > RFC0726 Remote Controlled Transmission and Echoing > Telnet option > > RFC0727 Telnet logout option > > RFC0735 Revised Telnet byte macro option > > RFC0736 Telnet SUPDUP option > > RFC0749 Telnet SUPDUP-Output option > > RFC0779 Telnet send-location option > > RFC0885 Telnet end of record option > > RFC0927 TACACS user identification Telnet option > > RFC0933 Output marking Telnet option > > RFC0946 Telnet terminal location number option > > RFC1041 Telnet 3270 regime option > > RFC1043 Telnet Data Entry Terminal option: DODIIS > implementation > > RFC1053 Telnet X.3 PAD option > > RFC1234 Tunneling IPX traffic through IP networks > > RFC1239 Reassignment of experimental MIBs to standard MIBs > > RFC1269 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Border Gateway > > Protocol: Version 3 > > RFC1276 Replication and Distributed Operations extensions to > > provide an Internet Directory using X.500 > > RFC1277 Encoding Network Addresses to Support Operation over > > Non-OSI Lower Layers > > RFC1285 FDDI Management Information Base > > RFC1314 A File Format for the Exchange of Images in > the Internet > > RFC1328 X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading > > RFC1370 Applicability Statement for OSPF > > RFC1372 Telnet Remote Flow Control Option > > RFC1378 The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP) > > RFC1381 SNMP MIB Extension for X.25 LAPB > > RFC1382 SNMP MIB Extension for the X.25 Packet Layer > > RFC1397 Default Route Advertisement In BGP2 and BGP3 > Version of > > The Border Gateway Protocol > > RFC1414 Identification MIB > > RFC1415 FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification > > RFC1418 SNMP over OSI > > RFC1419 SNMP over AppleTalk > > RFC1420 SNMP over IPX > > RFC1421 Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic > Mail: Part I: > > Message Encryption and Authentication Procedures > > RFC1422 Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic > Mail: Part II: > > Certificate-Based Key Management > > RFC1423 Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part > > III: Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers > > RFC1424 Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic > Mail: Part IV: > > Key Certification and Related Services > > RFC1461 SNMP MIB extension for Multiprotocol Interconnect over > > X.25 > > RFC1469 IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks > > RFC1471 The Definitions of Managed Objects for the > Link Control > > Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol > > RFC1472 The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Security > > Protocols of the Point-to-Point Protocol > > RFC1473 The Definitions of Managed Objects for the IP Network > > Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol > > RFC1474 The Definitions of Managed Objects for the > Bridge Network > > Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol > > RFC1478 An Architecture for Inter-Domain Policy Routing > > RFC1479 Inter-Domain Policy Routing Protocol Specification: > > Version 1 > > RFC1494 Equivalences between 1988 X.400 and RFC-822 > Message Bodies > > RFC1496 Rules for downgrading messages from X.400/88 > to X.400/84 > > when MIME content-types are present in the messages > > RFC1502 X.400 Use of Extended Character Sets > > RFC1512 FDDI Management Information Base > > RFC1513 Token Ring Extensions to the Remote Network > Monitoring MIB > > RFC1518 An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR > > RFC1519 Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address > > Assignment and Aggregation Strategy > > RFC1525 Definitions of Managed Objects for Source > Routing Bridges > > RFC1552 The PPP Internetworking Packet Exchange > Control Protocol > > (IPXCP) > > RFC1553 Compressing IPX Headers Over WAN Media (CIPX) > > RFC1582 Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits > > RFC1584 Multicast Extensions to OSPF > > RFC1598 PPP in X.25 > > RFC1618 PPP over ISDN > > RFC1648 Postmaster Convention for X.400 Operations > > RFC1666 Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA NAUs > using SMIv2 > > RFC1692 Transport Multiplexing Protocol (TMux) > > RFC1696 Modem Management Information Base (MIB) using SMIv2 > > RFC1742 AppleTalk Management Information Base II > > RFC1747 Definitions of Managed Objects for SNA Data > Link Control > > (SDLC) using SMIv2 > > RFC1749 IEEE 802.5 Station Source Routing MIB using SMIv2 > > RFC1755 ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM > > RFC1763 The PPP Banyan Vines Control Protocol (BVCP) > > RFC1764 The PPP XNS IDP Control Protocol (XNSCP) > > RFC1793 Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits > > RFC1828 IP Authentication using Keyed MD5 > > RFC1829 The ESP DES-CBC Transform > > RFC1835 Architecture of the WHOIS++ service > > RFC1848 MIME Object Security Services > > RFC1913 Architecture of the Whois++ Index Service > > RFC1914 How to Interact with a Whois++ Mesh > > RFC1929 Username/Password Authentication for SOCKS V5 > > RFC1961 GSS-API Authentication Method for SOCKS Version 5 > > > > Thanks... > > > > Eliot > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > . > newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________ > web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html > mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html > . newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html
- RE: [newtrk] Genuine public comment [Re: List of … Hallam-Baker, Phillip