Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs?

[Alex Zinin <[e-mail]>]

Radia,

  The biggest implication of moving to historic would be that "there's no
  more IETF Standard on the topic", and the message that the IETF admits
  that a spec is obsolete. This, in fact, may be the right message to send,
  but I wanted to make sure we've discussed this.

  Thanks.

-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin

Monday, December 19, 2005, 4:09:58 PM, Radia Perlman wrote:
> Seems reasonable. What's the downside of doing this?

> Radia



> Alex Zinin wrote:

>>Acee, Rohit, RTG-DIR members:
>>
>>  In case you didn't see this doc:
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment-02.txt
>>
>>  I'm holding a DISCUSS on this. The doc suggests to retire MOSPF and a
>>  bunch of other specs to Historic. I need to know your opinion on this.
>>
>>  Here's what I have on my list of questionable retirements:
>>
>>  
>>
>>>      RFC1378 (The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP))
>>>      RFC1469 (IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks)
>>>      RFC1582 (Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits)
>>>      RFC1584 (Multicast Extensions to OSPF)
>>>      RFC1598 (PPP in X.25)
>>>      RFC1755 (ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM)
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>  I'd like to hear opinions on this.
>>
>>  
>>