Re: draft-yevstifeyev-netblt-iana-00.txt

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <> Sun, 02 January 2011 09:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 899B83A698F for <>; Sun, 2 Jan 2011 01:40:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.276
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.276 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.638, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7T-Cjs5OSEHc for <>; Sun, 2 Jan 2011 01:40:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5547A3A698E for <>; Sun, 2 Jan 2011 01:40:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by bwz12 with SMTP id 12so12887262bwz.31 for <>; Sun, 02 Jan 2011 01:42:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type; bh=0jWa3Ww2o75mh6wWqaXWm037xBh35WOOqsn9uSw8Zvs=; b=szH6Z3YqTl67ojtmwT8EmiU8d38SRNYZZGnC3pZJj6oxEBkrE1CIZnB8c76s6AHQqx im11J6d/ljaSsOxh6EeL99/LCTyIUGwC86i0/Vle9brSNHQ2GPY4kOc6Jp1gL6PahGdN xn7Z53E0WlVrUGUa1ktg8jGJPWOjVN7SX/j50=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type; b=szLL+xT/LguCwTY3mc+3wXlYBNFcGZL2KuAzIlusU5kNTMs2S4LT4C6dRevxv5vMnP jfjud4OiHTzwxvyF07rtE5e+qVYYrIv9irp+c0lbGQByrgi9dhU1DWYeIdsLUFyJ7yOZ ml5gkaCXnsZW93wlkVu0juOE8DLR6TF9brqHI=
Received: by with SMTP id h9mr234572bkq.22.1293961366246; Sun, 02 Jan 2011 01:42:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPS id v1sm10857636bkt.17.2011. (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 02 Jan 2011 01:42:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2011 11:43:01 +0200
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru; rv: Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John C Klensin <>
Subject: Re: draft-yevstifeyev-netblt-iana-00.txt
References: <A402F767D6FBE228258439B1@[]>
In-Reply-To: <A402F767D6FBE228258439B1@[]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030203070408020306030006"
Cc:, John C C White <>,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2011 09:40:44 -0000

John, all,

I have read the document you mentioned (MIL-STD-.....). And the only 
thing I found interesting on these 111 pages is that the port number 1 
is used for TACO2 and what mentioned in section 6.2 of it.

As for White's draft. If he could kindly allow me to be the co-author of 
the document, I would like to work on this document.

So, as I have applied for adopting my drafts as WG items, I ask to 
mention the corresponding port number (1) for TACO2 in 
/draft-yevstifeyev-netblt-iana/ while publishing it as WG draft (if that 
would be approved).

All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

28.12.2010 18:54, John C Klensin wrote:
> Mykyta,
> Are you aware of NetBLT actually being in active use in the
> public Internet, in the form documented in RFC 998?  I'm not,
> but that sort of transport protocol isn't something I've paid
> careful attention to in many years.
> John C C White's 1997 Internet-Draft,
> suggests that, in its original form, NetBLT contained some
> defects that made it undesirable in practice.  That draft also
> suggested an update that would align NetBLT with then-current
> practice in some private (in this case military) network
> applications.  As far as I can tell, that update never went
> anywhere in the IETF, but that is (sadly) typical of such things
> if no one is pushing for it.
> Especially if there is not significant evidence of its being in
> active use in RFC 998 form on the public Internet, it might be
> worthwhile to combine your effort to get the IANA registry in
> order with some version or variation on John's draft so as to
> bring the protocol itself up-to-date.
> The information on the standard to which John referred is at
>; it
> doesn't appear to have changed much since his draft was produced.
> Even if it isn't useful to try to publish an updated version of
> the specification, it would probably be desirable to get any
> non-998 values used by the military standard into the registry
> as well.
> I've copied John on this note.  Since I don't know if he is
> still at MITRE, I've also copied what is possibly his current
> address based on a web search.  I have no idea whether he would
> still be interested, but he should at least be aware that I'm
> suggesting another look at his 13+ year old work.
> best regards and best new year's wishes to both of you,
>      john