IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Considerations

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Thu, 06 January 2011 10:57 UTC

Return-Path: <evnikita2@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61C0C3A6B72 for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 02:57:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.789
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.789 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.949, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P9MhFU601sZY for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 02:57:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60EDA3A6A1A for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 02:57:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by bwz12 with SMTP id 12so16179135bwz.31 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 02:59:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lEv7Ck8jaPq8JviKoXXt9gVLhvHDl8Js4fwsHHv1lhA=; b=H57ylSzGg5IuQOYiJAKU/rfa45kvxMR/LXqd5eTso9D28VOzUOpYMd0siV1N7ILEWc UTLrFeAldhbNrI3FHrWfo1NJbMQl2QEE3a75iaVi8wjBJBYmp/qw5lHtE2WU6CuLuQVO 9JPHKc+KWf3qVZK6vjhKfknnzMO6YBQ80wiJ4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=JQP4Sn+gaW1dHSKOvZKvUoQjjgUnhgBecu09iga472LrbBv45Qm32Tz7aRKpWdmvsC Q3H1BW/RqSH1A4IzMrHpsRSRSlGxo0V1bBrCWbt1pR7/dwBWzK9HdxMIlcXRAcQ7XR1F usR8O9ZRoyqBzL7G8Rwp749nrYaMp9T0rXwx8=
Received: by 10.204.23.66 with SMTP id q2mr2337238bkb.130.1294311596485; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 02:59:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j11sm13479079bka.12.2011.01.06.02.59.54 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 06 Jan 2011 02:59:55 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D25A0BC.9050505@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:00:12 +0200
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Subject: Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Considerations
References: <4D1715BE.6040100@gmail.com> <4D199D89.4080508@gmail.com><00eb01cba6a5$b5606840$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net><4D1D6EB3.40803@gmail.com> <4D2223E4.2040104@isi.edu><D3AB3EC9-7C73-4CDA-8702-3B70CD778ED7@nokia.com><4D240101.6090308@gmail.com> <5131531F-D1E6-44F1-8FC0-94CBCF6CC2A8@isi.edu> <024801cbaccd$e347d580$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4D2554F8.7060201@gmail.com> <4D257766.7060808@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4D257766.7060808@isi.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, tsvwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 10:57:51 -0000

06.01.2011 10:03, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 1/5/2011 9:36 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> ...
>>>> Maybe there is no doubt that this protocol should be Historic - so
>>>> could you
>>> please sponsor the publication of this document as RFC?
>>>
>>> There us also neither a need nor a utility. Is there some other reason
>>> you ate
>>> trying so hard to get an RFC published?
> >
>> If you mean IRTP IANA Considerations, I have asked to withdraw it. Now I
>> propose tsvwg-irtp-to-historic-00. Moreover, I think that would be OK
>> for RDP too.
>
> This too has no need nor utility.
>
> They're experimental. They're outdated and not in use. They're not 
> being replaced with anything. There's no point in doing *anything* 
> associated with *any* of these protocols (IRTP, NETBLT, RDP).
But there will be no harm if we mark them as Historic. That would just 
indicate that they are deprecated.
>
> Joe
>

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status