Re: draft-yevstifeyev-netblt-iana-00.txt

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Mykyta,

This is very encouraging.  Thanks.

best new year's wishes,
   john


--On Sunday, January 02, 2011 11:43 +0200 Mykyta Yevstifeyev
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> John, all,
> 
> I have read the document you mentioned (MIL-STD-.....). And
> the only thing I found interesting on these 111 pages is that
> the port number 1 is used for TACO2 and what mentioned in
> section 6.2 of it.
> 
> As for White's draft. If he could kindly allow me to be the
> co-author of the document, I would like to work on this
> document.
> 
> So, as I have applied for adopting my drafts as WG items, I
> ask to mention the corresponding port number (1) for TACO2 in
> /draft-yevstifeyev-netblt-iana/ while publishing it as WG
> draft (if that would be approved).
> 
> All the best,
> Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> 
> 28.12.2010 18:54, John C Klensin wrote:
>> Mykyta,
>> 
>> Are you aware of NetBLT actually being in active use in the
>> public Internet, in the form documented in RFC 998?  I'm not,
>> but that sort of transport protocol isn't something I've paid
>> careful attention to in many years.
>> 
>> John C C White's 1997 Internet-Draft,
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-white-protocol-stack-00,
>> suggests that, in its original form, NetBLT contained some
>> defects that made it undesirable in practice.  That draft also
>> suggested an update that would align NetBLT with then-current
>> practice in some private (in this case military) network
>> applications.  As far as I can tell, that update never went
>> anywhere in the IETF, but that is (sadly) typical of such
>> things if no one is pushing for it.
>> 
>> Especially if there is not significant evidence of its being
>> in active use in RFC 998 form on the public Internet, it
>> might be worthwhile to combine your effort to get the IANA
>> registry in order with some version or variation on John's
>> draft so as to bring the protocol itself up-to-date.
>> 
>> The information on the standard to which John referred is at
>> http://www.gwg.nga.mil/ntb/baseline/docs/44500/index.html; it
>> doesn't appear to have changed much since his draft was
>> produced.
>> 
>> Even if it isn't useful to try to publish an updated version
>> of the specification, it would probably be desirable to get
>> any non-998 values used by the military standard into the
>> registry as well.
>> 
>> I've copied John on this note.  Since I don't know if he is
>> still at MITRE, I've also copied what is possibly his current
>> address based on a web search.  I have no idea whether he
>> would still be interested, but he should at least be aware
>> that I'm suggesting another look at his 13+ year old work.
>> 
>> best regards and best new year's wishes to both of you,
>>      john
>