RE: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs?

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

Alex, Rohit and Acee:

How about we put it to historic and I submit a work-item to OSPF?

sue

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Rohit Dube
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 10:43 PM
To: Alex Zinin; Acee Lindem
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs?

Hey Alex,

I will discuss with Acee soon, but there is no ongoing MOSPF 
work. In late 2002, we had removed MOSPF work-items from the
working groups work-item list and we had announced the removal
of the same in the Nov/Dec-2002 WG meeting. While I am sure
that there are some MOSPF networks out there, I am also sure
that permanently putting a stop to MOSPF work (if that is
what historic implies) would surprise or effect very few 
people.

Best,
--rohit.

--- Alex Zinin <[e-mail]> 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.
> 
> -- 
> Alex
> http://www.psg.com/~zinin
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com