Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Considerations
Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Tue, 11 January 2011 15:09 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 AD6F428C193; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:09:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.646
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.406, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, 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 WOg-sQ6BbQGC; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:09:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EA4828C152; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:09:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ewy8 with SMTP id 8so9513177ewy.31 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:12:11 -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=SZOjYUA7s+Wverc+L5IyiOm5QG7fhwe4kVUv1U2qPfk=; b=SqiGNXx6WUFyz2r2Ku37h2uhqoyLhTKYkEzCqzIqvfL+8GxeH/MEwGNP/76gBFt+QF ++Z/rJZVFvtGNw1uadn25fv8TZ+5/SKWV6JJ1S5eYitqJvCXo796HncVnxtDZlOl5/we Pik/5di8zn/oBOPZLvXUjvotRzeVjsEPWkUSY=
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=XA5e6SfuS/Q3Q+ceJQuItedLxeCEnfLBQlXMdcTvO4stsPUxwn4HYiZRq3mvJEcOCy 8BF6FqDmL+tP7Fsb8GY5MPSD6I/o/eElszxjxz54hivR95yyPsQcD8uUa6yInw2S0OBm 135gzjJlU/6/Ml+7Af6hPT1CEpgvbPiKkmvfk=
Received: by 10.204.120.3 with SMTP id b3mr4043894bkr.41.1294758731583; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:12:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x38sm15155074bkj.1.2011.01.11.07.12.09 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:12:10 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D2C735C.7070302@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:12:28 +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: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
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><4D25A0BC.9050505@gmail.com><84DCE00C-E6FE-4148-9ADB-A573672DC5F0@isi.edu><4D26ADE8.5080001@gmail.com><4D26B462.3040001@isi.edu><4D27F316.2000607@gmail.com><4D2B4994.9080009@isi.edu> <AANLkTinrxAixH_qLskfnfZrOshNd=B6WV20gwjUfxRj2@mail.gmail.com> <034201cbb183$42ac2080$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <034201cbb183$42ac2080$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
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: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:09:56 -0000
11.01.2011 13:28, t.petch wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mykyta Yevstifeyev"<evnikita2@gmail.com> > To: "Joe Touch"<touch@isi.edu> > Cc: "t.petch"<ietfc@btconnect.com>;<gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> > Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 10:24 AM > >> Joe, >> >> 2011/1/10, Joe Touch<touch@isi.edu>: >>> >>> On 1/7/2011 9:16 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: >>> ... >>>>> "You need to explain why these protocols *need* to be moved to >>>>> Historic". Such actions are typically reserved for protocols in >>>>> current use that are dangerous, or protocols that are in current use >>>>> that are being replaced by other protocols. Neither is the case here. >>>>> There is no need to "move to Historic" (i.e., "deprecate", within the >>>>> IETF process) such protocols. >>> > >>>> See my message in IETF Discussion list. >>> For those not on that list: >>> >>> - there are many others who share my view that moving experimental >>> protocols to historic isn't useful per se, especially these protocols in >>> particular >> What 'these'? See that below. >>> - your argument appears to be "the definition of Historic is incorrect" >>> >> Maybe a bit. It is more narrow and unclear than incorrect. >>> Given your argument, it's difficult to appreciate why you claim it is >>> urgent to move these protocols to a status whose definition you >>> explicitly disagree with. >> What protocols? Curently I'm speaking only about one - IRTP. Joe, > Yes, and that is one of the three (IRTP, NETBLT, RDP) that you > raised on the ietf list under 'Old transport-layer protocols to Historic?' It was to request the discussion on topics related with all these protocols. > And as Joe has accurately pointed out, the ietf list has generated a lot > of responses, from names I know well and have a high regard for, > almost all of which say that this is a bad idea. It is true that for > NETBLT and for RDP concrete reasons have been given why this > is a very bad idea; doubtless we coud find similar reasons for IRTP. As well as I know, almost all responses concerned only RDP and NETBLT, and nearly nobody said anything about IRTP. So I want to ask that now - what was IRTP developed for? Is there any real reason it may be used? Mykyta > So you have proposed moving protocols to Historic and practically > no-one agrees with what you say. > > Tom Petch > >> Mykyta >>> Joe >>>
- Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Considerations Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Consideratio… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Consideratio… t.petch
- Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Consideratio… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Consideratio… Joe Touch
- Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Consideratio… Lars Eggert
- Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Consideratio… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Consideratio… Joe Touch
- Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Consideratio… t.petch
- Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Consideratio… Joe Touch
- Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Consideratio… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Consideratio… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Consideratio… Joe Touch
- Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Consideratio… Joe Touch
- Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Consideratio… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Consideratio… Joe Touch
- Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Consideratio… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Consideratio… Joe Touch
- Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Consideratio… Mykyta Yevstifeyev