IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Considerations

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Thu, 06 January 2011 15:56 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 3F87A3A6E2B for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 07:56:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.443
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.443 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.039, 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 skKj+n9B3BVc for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 07:56:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 796CC3A6E1A for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 07:56:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.91] (pool-71-105-94-39.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.105.94.39]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p06Fw77i003862 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 6 Jan 2011 07:58:18 -0800 (PST)
References: <4D1715BE.6040100@gmail.com> <4D199D89.4080508@gmail.com> <00eb01cba6a5$b5606840$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4D1D6EB3.40803@gmail.com> <4D2223E4.2040104@isi.edu> <D3AB3EC9-7C73-4CDA-8702-3B70CD778ED7@nokia.com> <4D240101.6090308@gmail.com> <5131531F-D1E6-44F1-8FC0-94CBCF6CC2A8@isi.edu> <024801cbaccd$e347d580$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4D2554F8.7060201@gmail.com> <4D257766.7060808@isi.edu> <4D25A0BC.9050505@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D25A0BC.9050505@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8C148)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <84DCE00C-E6FE-4148-9ADB-A573672DC5F0@isi.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8C148)
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Subject: Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Considerations
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 08:01:46 -0800
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
X-MailScanner-ID: p06Fw77i003862
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: "gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@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: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 15:56:41 -0000

On Jan 6, 2011, at 3:00 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> 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. 

Joe
>>

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