IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-palanivelan-bfd-v2-gr-08

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Thu, 28 October 2010 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6111C3A689B for <rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:59:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.392
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.207, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JSMn-3lSaDTK for <rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D14B3A6774 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyb28 with SMTP id 28so2250231wyb.31 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=sUUXBRDBbXLF6ot17YXfbrQtcwZDdIlw2WszfJGGe8w=; b=TKfv2DPNgm0px7DOyoS3Ij0jggGtMxVLnreRvP0advF0QU/QHwQkLr6e8LST365lyS H8tYbTplUfWV8reuPK4SZ/0VYFoxsNVT1U4au6i+ZHUpkLK42WTbnff4BE6maXS856Nu wqa07caVX+Fsp9CLiSAFsP07tu6RPJTBbspfk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=pO6/fa+hzGcPPR3jT3uRk7PgIx8zWWccuN3bWUQNEbHdWkDl8Ypsp0A/jbXm9CbQiZ yBZSoXsZ0g8pnR1GhXz6TF5MqBXXv+DKUTwvFq/dnBXgOBRMBEpXHW5FTOzq8LEALbDB TR0hiQm/2H+GWggAQEVbCkQokMbtmerW53o+E=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.132.70 with SMTP id a6mr9356323wbt.85.1288296058351; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.97.30 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C00F7E81-49DF-4515-85AF-47ED6A0ECB2D@juniper.net>
References: <FB649DA20153634794BEBBAB504DA1AD4506130D74@EMBX02-BNG.jnpr.net> <C2E157D9-DB69-43D8-BB86-E148A93BA9EE@juniper.net> <D4A66B38FC6C6E4F820A2470AEEA5CED02D587DF@XMB-BGL-411.cisco.com> <624AA73F-B922-45D4-B934-1BFD9F9E629D@juniper.net> <AANLkTik2gL3Cd3jwcifCaQRmrWRWhYSZLoYuPLkb7=tv@mail.gmail.com> <C00F7E81-49DF-4515-85AF-47ED6A0ECB2D@juniper.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:00:58 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTimLTodO2JkQhAAHo+ZzzfpVoaJpC=BNRjha8Y7q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: draft-palanivelan-bfd-v2-gr-08
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
To: Dave Katz <dkatz@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, Palanivelan A <apvelan@cisco.com>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-bfd>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 19:59:07 -0000

Who knows, I've never done it. For all I know it may be more difficult
than publishing a standards track document :-)

Thanks,
Donald

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Dave Katz <dkatz@juniper.net> wrote:
> I stand corrected.
>
> I assume that there is at least some hurdle to cross to publish a Historic RFC;  otherwise I could publish my grocery lists or something.  ;-)
>
> --Dave
>
> On Oct 28, 2010, at 1:10 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Dave Katz <dkatz@juniper.net> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> I don't think that there is any mechanism for an ID to achieve Historic
>>> status (which is a misnomer in this case), though I'm not an IETF process
>>> expert;  IDs are purged after six months.  If I understand correctly,
>>> Historic status is used to classify older RFCs whose technology has been
>>> abandoned or otherwise overtaken by events.  I don't believe there is any
>>> mechanism by which this draft can be archived within the IETF.
>>
>> A number of RFCs have been issued originally as Historic. The most
>> recent three were RFC 6037, RFC 5806, and RFC 5773 for which the
>> official announcements are here:
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=934&k2=8514&tid=1288292436
>> https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=934&k2=7673&tid=1288292698
>> https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=934&k2=7505&tid=1288292756
>>
>> Donald
>>
>>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email