IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Considerations

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Wed, 05 January 2011 05:54 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 945793A6A5E for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 21:54:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.803
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.803 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 EJYwxG-4i0fd for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 21:54:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CBD53A6A2C for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 21:54:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.102.236.43] (166-205-136-206.mobile.mymmode.com [166.205.136.206] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p055uchQ023790 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 4 Jan 2011 21:56:51 -0800 (PST)
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>
In-Reply-To: <4D240101.6090308@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8C148)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <5131531F-D1E6-44F1-8FC0-94CBCF6CC2A8@isi.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8C148)
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Subject: Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Considerations
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 21:56:32 -0800
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: "gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, "jccw@jccw.org" <jccw@jccw.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "jmpolk@cisco.com" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
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: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 05:54:58 -0000

On Jan 4, 2011, at 9:26 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> wrote:

> 04.01.2011 13:00, Lars Eggert wrote:
>> On 2011-1-3, at 21:30, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> At this point, they might be better moved to historic than anything else. There's no reason to have IANA track or manage their values.
>> As an individual WG participant, I fully agree with Joe.
> Lars
> 
> As I have mentioned before, I can agree with this only for IRTP (and maybe for RDP), but not NETBLT. I have recently made a draft moving IRTP to historic - here is a link
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-tsvwg-irtp-to-historic/
> 
> 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?

Joe

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