IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Palanivelan A (apvelan)" <apvelan@cisco.com> Fri, 29 October 2010 06:33 UTC

Return-Path: <apvelan@cisco.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 0BC3B3A6A08 for <rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.747
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.852, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 BT+0gxC4gPVT for <rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C24703A6A09 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAHwHykxAaMHG/2dsb2JhbAChVHGgMJwshUgEhFWJDA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.58,257,1286150400"; d="scan'208";a="287801613"
Received: from syd-core-1.cisco.com ([64.104.193.198]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Oct 2010 06:34:02 +0000
Received: from xbh-bgl-412.cisco.com (xbh-bgl-412.cisco.com [72.163.129.202]) by syd-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o9T6Xnrr012521; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 06:34:01 GMT
Received: from xmb-bgl-411.cisco.com ([72.163.129.207]) by xbh-bgl-412.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:03:59 +0530
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: draft-palanivelan-bfd-v2-gr-08
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:03:57 +0530
Message-ID: <D4A66B38FC6C6E4F820A2470AEEA5CED02D589FE@XMB-BGL-411.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C00F7E81-49DF-4515-85AF-47ED6A0ECB2D@juniper.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: draft-palanivelan-bfd-v2-gr-08
Thread-Index: Act22StwywvTSDfjQXeBlshzASajbwAVBLxw
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>
From: "Palanivelan A (apvelan)" <apvelan@cisco.com>
To: Dave Katz <dkatz@juniper.net>, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Oct 2010 06:33:59.0871 (UTC) FILETIME=[453ACCF0:01CB7733]
Cc: rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
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: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 06:33:11 -0000

My experience with the process is not much to talk about but let me
confirm it is not easy even to get it to Historic :).
I loved to be part of working group in working through this document and
unfortunately it did not happen. 

Any good suggestions in how to go about, I would love to take it Dave.

Regards,
A.Palanivelan

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Katz [mailto:dkatz@juniper.net] 
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 1:15 AM
To: Donald Eastlake
Cc: rtg-bfd WG; Palanivelan A (apvelan)
Subject: Re: draft-palanivelan-bfd-v2-gr-08

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=1288
292436
>
https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=934&k2=7673&tid=1288
292698
>
https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=934&k2=7505&tid=1288
292756
> 
> Donald
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email