On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Folks, I took a look at the first posting, and was surprised at those
where I'm personally knowledgable.
RFC1378 The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)
It was widely implemented. I still use this. My $1000 HP LaserJet 4ML
works fine,
On Dec 16 2004, at 18:13 Uhr, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
please read draft-ietf-newtrk-cruft-00.txt, in particular section 3.2,
Ah good, I did.
o Usage. A standard that is widely used should probably be left
alone (better it should be advanced, but that is beyond the scope
--On torsdag, desember 16, 2004 16:37:09 +0100 Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
RFC1269 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Border Gateway
Protocol: Version 3
Why would this be cruft? The BGP4 MIB was just recently approved...
Good thing too. Take a good look at
Since the IETF list is obviously in rehash-of-WG-discussion mode today, I
thought I'd contribute to the flamage, and rehash the logic behind the list
of old standards that arrived in your inboxes a few days ago.
Let's look back on what the IETF has decided previously.
In 1994, the IETF
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 10:50:41AM -0500,
George Swallow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 17 lines which said:
Maybe we need a new category STABLE?
I don't think that would be a good name since it might imply that others
are INSTABLE ;-). Perhaps FROZEN, STATIC, MATURE?
BORING?
Date: 2004-12-14 13:02
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Addison Phillips [wM] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Addison Phillips [wM] scripsit:
The IETF process is not really my concern. I will note that many IETF and
non-IETF standards folks have participated in the
Date: 2004-12-14 23:35
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Doug Ewell scripsit:
* Region subtag 830, Channel Islands, is based on a UN M.49 code.
Since that is an English-only standard, one must look elsewhere to find
the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Harald Tvei
t Alvestrand writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] has already been denied posting rights on at least
one IETF WG mailing list because of this behaviour.
Is it time to dig out RFC 3683/BCP 83?
BTW - has anyone, anywhere ever seen a response from him/them when they
Kurt, all,
Sorry these comments are so late. I hope they will be read,
though, since I've been deployed on so many IETF operations...
I reviewed the BCP draft on the IAD role, and what I think the IAD position
should be like. My major issue with the job description is that it
makes the IAD too
Eliot Even if someone *has* implemented the telnet TACACS user option,
Eliot would a user really want to use it?
Eric I don't know. Do you?
Eliot Yes, I do. Many of us do. And that's the point.
I'm sure you think you know, but I don't know that you know, which means
that a lot
Well, I'd like to suggest that we should decide not to decide
at this time. It is a low-level issue compared to getting the
BCP to a point of consensus and keeping to the schedule for
creating the IASA. As a survivor of many ISOC Board discussions
on such issues, I can tell you we aren't going to
Pekka Savola wrote:
There's certainly no illusion that these protocols are not being used
in some part(s) of the universe.
The question is really whether the IETF is interested in maintaining
them any longer, and whether we expect significant new deployments of
these protocols.
Marking the
--On 17. desember 2004 10:21 -0500 William Allen Simpson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marking the document historic does not take it away from deployment
-- marking document as historic doesn't hurt at all (except
procedurally, when used as a normative reference, but then we have to
do some work in
Well, I'd like to suggest that we should decide not to decide
at this time. It is a low-level issue compared to getting the
BCP to a point of consensus and keeping to the schedule for
creating the IASA. As a survivor of many ISOC Board discussions
on such issues, I can tell you we aren't
--On Friday, 17 December, 2004 07:32 +0200 Pekka Savola
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, John C Klensin wrote:
[...]
I suggest that the RFC Editor's traditional rule about
normative references from standards track documents to things
of a lower maturity level should
--On Friday, 17 December, 2004 13:16 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since the IETF list is obviously in rehash-of-WG-discussion
mode today, I thought I'd contribute to the flamage, and
rehash the logic behind the list of old standards that arrived
in your inboxes a
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
At the NEWTRK WG meeting in San Diego in August, I explained my
motivation for pursuing this:
This is the lightest-way process for doing what RFC 2026 mandates
that I have been able to imagine. Now, we should either execute on
that process, OR STOP TALKING
At 13:16 17/12/2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
flame
HAVING THE IETF CONTINUE TO SAY ONE THING AND DO ANOTHER IS NOT A GOOD
THING FOR THE INTERNET.
/flame
OK, finished shouting. Eric and Bob: the NEWTRK list is waiting for your
contribution on the principle involved, and your
--On Friday, 17 December, 2004 12:39 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On torsdag, desember 16, 2004 16:37:09 +0100 Eliot Lear
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RFC1269 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Border
Gateway Protocol: Version 3
Why would this be
--On Thursday, 16 December, 2004 22:30 -0500 Robert Moskowitz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 05:53 PM 12/16/2004, William Allen Simpson wrote:
RFC1828 IP Authentication using Keyed MD5
RFC1829 The ESP DES-CBC Transform
Now *THESE* were historic when written! Due to US
Brian,
I agree, with respect to the specifics (as I said in my note).
However, a principle should be captured. And, to the extent
we do not yet (apparently) have general agreement on the principle,
we still have work to do.
Though, in general, my thinking this morning has been running
along the
John C Klensin wrote:
Then these need the bad designation, not just the not really
interesting any more one. And that, presumably, requires a
1828/1829 considered harmful document, or at least a paragraph
and a place to put it.
Well, gosh and golly gee, I wrote an ISAKMP considered harmful
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Marking the document historic does not take it away from deployment
-- marking document as historic doesn't hurt at all (except
procedurally, when used as a normative reference, but then we have to
do some work in any case if the reference was outdated).
This must be
At 12:12 PM -0500 12/17/04, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Brian,
I agree, with respect to the specifics (as I said in my note).
However, a principle should be captured. And, to the extent
we do not yet (apparently) have general agreement on the principle,
we still have work to do.
Though, in general, my
Peter Constable wrote:
The definitions we have now will remain, they will continue
to be referenced and available.
I've no idea where you found en-NH. And what's the correct
form, pt-TP or pt-TL ? And the fallback algorithm makes no
sense for cases like en-US-boont, de-CH-1996, or
--On fredag, desember 17, 2004 11:56:43 -0500 John C Klensin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I think the old-standards team can take RFC 1269 off the
list with a note saying obsoleted by draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mib,
no action necessary.
Harald,
Sorry, but I've got a procedural problem with this.
--On Friday, 17 December, 2004 22:31 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On fredag, desember 17, 2004 11:56:43 -0500 John C Klensin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I think the old-standards team can take RFC 1269 off the
list with a note saying obsoleted by
Small correction:
The venue address is 350 Oracle Parkway, not 250.
^ ^
Information on lemonade and the Interim can be found at
http://flyingfox.snowshore.com/i-d/lemonade/
-Original Message-
Lemonade 61.5 Interim Meeting
Location
28 matches
Mail list logo
