Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs?

[Radia Perlman <[e-mail]>]

Suppose someone does want to use MOSPF, etc. Moving them to historic 
doesn't seem
to prevent anyone from implementing them.

The only way I could imagine it would make any difference is if IPR 
statements are based on
the thing being standard, and if IETF de-standardized something, then it 
would no longer
be royalty free.

Radia



Susan Hares wrote:

>Alex:
>
>I think there are some environments where MOSPF might be useful.
>How do we want to judge this?
>
>sue
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>Behalf Of Radia Perlman
>Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 7:10 PM
>To: Alex Zinin
>Cc: [e-mail]; Acee Lindem; Rohit Dube
>Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs?
>
>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.
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>