John == John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Harald,
John Sorry, but I've got a procedural problem with this. I-Ds
John can't obsolete anything, even I-Ds approved by the IESG.
John While fiddle with the RFC Editor note in the
John announcement... may be the usual
William == William Allen Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
William 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
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
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?
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 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
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
--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
On Dec 16 2004, at 14:02 Uhr, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
RFC0885 Telnet end of record option
This option was, at least at one time, used for telnet clients that
connected to IBM mainframes... It was used to indicate the end of a
3270 datastream.
... and 5250 (RFC2877).
Note that there was
On 16-dec-04, at 14:55, Carsten Bormann wrote:
It's probably necessary to do a full dependency analysis to do this
right.
OMG, what a visit to the technology attic.
Why do we care if there are still implementations that are based on
these documents in use?
The important question is whether
Why do we care if there are still implementations that are based on
these documents in use?
The important question is whether there are going to be new or revised
implementations based on these documents.
A new implementation for tn5250 is about as likely as a new
implementation for NTP.
Margaret,
Thanks for your note. Please see below for responses:
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
RFC0885 Telnet end of record option
This option was, at least at one time, used for telnet clients that
connected to IBM mainframes... It was used to indicate the end of a
3270 datastream. I
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?
...George
George Swallow Cisco Systems
Bert,
I'll remove it from the list with the expectation that the new MIB will
obsolete the old one. However, I note that is currently not stated in
the header of the draft.
Eliot
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
W.r.t.
RFC1269 Definitions of Managed Objects for the Border Gateway
*
* It's probably necessary to do a full dependency analysis to do this
* right.
*
If it's not broken, why break it?
Bob Braden
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
* Standards have been invented for creating markets.
That's strange, all these years I thought standards were for
interoperability.
Bob Braden
* Gruesse, Carsten
*
*
* ___
* Ietf mailing list
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
Bob Braden wrote:
If it's not broken, why break it?
* Standards have been invented for creating markets.
That's strange, all these years I thought standards were for
interoperability.
Hear, Hear!
Folks, I took a look at the first posting, and was surprised at those
where I'm personally
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 government pressure,
it took years (and big plenary protests) for them to be published!
Especially
Carsten,
please read draft-ietf-newtrk-cruft-00.txt, in particular section 3.2, and
see if it answers your question this has been a major discussion
source
Harald
--On 16. desember 2004 15:40 +0100 Carsten Bormann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So what does HISTORIC
RFC0885 Telnet end of record option
This option was, at least at one time, used for telnet clients that
connected to IBM mainframes... It was used to indicate the end of a
3270 datastream. I don't know if it is still used in that fashion,
but Bob Moskowitz might know.
RFC1041
W.r.t.
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 1269. I don't think it would pass
a MIB compiler test today.
: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3
* Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED],
*[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subject: Re: [newtrk] List of Old Standards to be retired
* List-Id: IETF-Discussion ietf.ietf.org
* X-ISI-4-32-5-MailScanner: Found to be clean
* X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean
* X
William Allen Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RFC1598 PPP in X.25
RFC1618 PPP over ISDN
At one time, these were incredibly important in the 3rd world, and
some parts of Europe and Japan. Is X.25 completely non-existant
today? Heck, folks were running X.25 over ISDN
27 matches
Mail list logo
