Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Considerations

[Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]>]

06.01.2011 18:01, Joe Touch wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2011, at 3:00 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>
>> 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 They're outdated and not in use.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.
> The harm is the time and resources you're wasting on what really does look like a desperate attempt to write an RFC - any RFC.
>
> You need to explain why these protocols *need* to be deprecated, and why that has to happen now, *except* as a way to stop you from chasing useless IANA support for these protocols.
Dear Joe,

Firstly, what draft we are speaking about? I consider the topic we are 
discussing to be 'moving old transport protocols to Historic'. So why 
you talk about IANA considerations for that?

Moreover, let me cite your message I received before:

> That's the key. This (and the other protocols you wrote similar docs 
> for, e.g., NETBLT and RDP) don't use IANA-assigned values. They have 
> values, but there was not a need for a registry for several reasons, 
> including the fact that they were experimental.
>
> 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.
>
> Joe 
So on 3 January you say that they should be moved to Historic and now, 
after 3 days that there no need for this. Could you please claim your 
opinion clearly?

Lastly, toy said: "You need to explain why these protocols *need* to be 
deprecated, and why that has to happen now". Let me explain this issues. 
They are *already* deprecated and my draft explains reasons that caused 
it clearly. Read it please carefully.

All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> Joe