Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs?

[Alex Zinin <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Rohit! That's what I would expect too, yet I wanted you
guys to be in the loop.

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

Monday, December 19, 2005, 7:42:41 PM, Rohit Dube wrote:
> 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