IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Old transport-layer protocols to Historic?

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Sat, 08 January 2011 05:11 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 074913A6987; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 21:11:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.166
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.166 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.433, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 pZGV3PBuWUWk; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 21:11:14 -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 6D3A33A6985; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 21:11:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by bwz12 with SMTP id 12so17774343bwz.31 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 21:13:20 -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=H1kv7eQomc9b6qILxdKMukAyEmCca6ZROH56uVGY5SM=; b=bdQRGddlERweisGS0RR9ZRevs347kBJztGeDF0vzhF02P8FhPMJLe5tOBnXozemFs1 wQfnxTod0Qf46S66pOr2hjmZCPQEuWbWIS4jGC9wiXkv/ZVIHeGvomitYXQa7z5Dns9a WrZxpYkZVNNmN+UAovT7KCPPnfdM/Ae6APA4k=
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=n9vSPUhtRibA9qZWR2g0iYyBfkGPuvrYGiN5j7VNBhN3OGr8tOyEjl1lgqx4ylxTp6 PQYPg9nw1Boz2oy7JTbD7LcoQ/PX6JsyphnTwU5DuWIK5aGXxxkD55l59365ulAFhMR8 Tk8ilA/N6yjcSpfoyhxDnXuWV3AFEe3SffXtM=
Received: by 10.204.102.206 with SMTP id h14mr1301520bko.45.1294463599690; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 21:13:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p22sm14414731bkp.9.2011.01.07.21.13.17 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 07 Jan 2011 21:13:18 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D27F280.1020205@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 07:13:36 +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: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Old transport-layer protocols to Historic?
References: <4D2556C9.9020901@gmail.com> <AFC50009-6908-4AAB-89FB-45C776F40BE2@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AFC50009-6908-4AAB-89FB-45C776F40BE2@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org, IETF Discussion <ietf@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: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 05:11:16 -0000

07.01.2011 21:53, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Mykyta,
>
>
> On Jan 5, 2011, at 9:44 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> There have been a discussion on tsvwg mailing list about old transport layer protocols - exactly IRTP (RFC938), RDP (RFC908,1151) and NETBLT (RFC998). Initially there have been proposed to define IANA considerations for them. But after a discussion it was found out that it would be better to move them to Historic. I am writing to request more wider discussion on this topic.
> I see little value even thinking about this.  It's looks like a "make work" project to me.  Just because something is "old", doesn't mean it is "historic" in the sense the label is used in the IETF.
>
> Regarding RDP (RFC908, RFC1151), of which I am one of the authors, both are currently labeled as Experimental.  I do not see any reason to change that.
>
> Bob
>
>
Dear all,

RFC2026 mentions:

>   A specification that has been superseded by a more recent
>     specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is
>     assigned to the "Historic" level.
and gives 2 reasons for making the RFC Historic: 1) RFC is obsoleted 
(superseded) or 2) obsolete.

Obsoleted = made obsolete. This is obvious. When one RFC replaces 
another, it obsoletes it, and second becomes obsolete.

What is obsolete (adj.)? Obsolete = deprecated, outdated, out of use, 
non-current, etc.

Moreover, RFC2026 does not set any other guidelines for setting the 
Historic status. That is why if the protocol is out of use, even 
specified by Experimental RFC, it is a reason to move its spec. to 
Historic, in accordance with RFC2026.

All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

>> There is quite strong consensus that IRTP should be Historic. There is a registered draft on this topic:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-tsvwg-irtp-to-historic/
>>
>> But as for others it should be discussed. Moreover, maybe anyone knows some other old transport-layer protocols that are no longer in use?
>>
>> Please copy tour answer to tsvwg@ietf.org
>>
>> All the best,
>> Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email