11.01.2011 13:36, t.petch wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock"
To: "Mykyta Yevstifeyev"
Cc: "Bob Hinden";; "IETF Discussion"
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 9:06 AM
Mykyta,
RDP is still in use (I know of companies using it). It is
used heavily as a transport for a
- Original Message -
From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock"
To: "Mykyta Yevstifeyev"
Cc: "Bob Hinden" ; ; "IETF Discussion"
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 9:06 AM
> Mykyta,
>
> RDP is still in use (I know of companies using it). It is
> used heavily as a transport for a "popular brand" of NAS fo
Eric Rosen wrote:
> So RDP is a useful and deployed pre-standards protocol that was one of the
> driving forces behind a successful standardization effort. But newer
> applications that need that kind of transport instead use the standard,
> SCTP.
>
> I don't know how one could possibly make a
> RDP is still in use
> was the initial transport used for gateway control (such as SGCP) until
> SCTP was developed.
> Many commercial gateways still support these older pre-standard (to
> MEGACO) control protocols. Some older devices still provisioned in the
> network only support the older p
Mykyta,
RDP is still in use (I know of companies using it). It is
used heavily as a transport for a "popular brand" of NAS for
dial access call control and was a precursor to MEGACO/H.248.
RDP was the initial transport used for gateway control (such
as SGCP) until SCTP was developed. Many commer
+1
--On Friday, January 07, 2011 09:15 -0500 Andrew Sullivan
wrote:
> I'm not keen to start a language war, but. . .
>
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 08:39:37AM +0200, Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> wrote:
>
>> Moreover, 'obsoleted' means the same as 'deprecated' or
>> 'non-current' (see
>> http://www.syno
08.01.2011 12:55, Mykyta Yevstifeyev ?:
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 NET
08.01.2011 18:57, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, January 07, 2011 21:26 -0800 Dave CROCKER
wrote:
On 1/6/2011 12:40 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
Historic might imply that they were once in service, but have
later been replaced/deprecated.
We assign labels to indicate the status of the speci
Bob Hinden replied to Mykyta:
If you think RFC20206 is wrong, then propose changes to it and see if
people agree with the changes. Until it is changed, IMHO you should
not propose actions based on what you as an individual think is
incorrect. There needs to be a community consensus that RFC2
Hi,
> I think that the author of RFC2026 was wrong while writing the definition of
> Historic status. This document says that Historic should be assigned only to
> that documents that were standards and now are obsolete. But why do we need
> such narrow definition? Non-standards RFCs are not ma
--On Friday, January 07, 2011 21:26 -0800 Dave CROCKER
wrote:
>
>
> On 1/6/2011 12:40 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
>> Historic might imply that they were once in service, but have
>> later been replaced/deprecated.
>
>
> We assign labels to indicate the status of the specification,
> not the statu
08.01.2011 18:12, Lixia Zhang wrote:
On Jan 7, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
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 -
08.01.2011 18:02, Lixia Zhang wrote:
On Jan 6, 2011, at 10:01 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
06.01.2011 23:45, Doug Ewell wrote:
Lixia Zhang wrote:
PS: on the other hand, what would a "historical status" imply? the ideas
obsolete?
Every now and then, someone proposes to move a given RFC
On Jan 7, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> 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
On Jan 6, 2011, at 10:01 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> 06.01.2011 23:45, Doug Ewell wrote:
>>
>> Lixia Zhang wrote:
>>
>>> PS: on the other hand, what would a "historical status" imply? the ideas
>>> obsolete?
>> Every now and then, someone proposes to move a given RFC to Historic,
>> not
08.01.2011 7:26, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 1/6/2011 12:40 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
Historic might imply that they were once in service, but have later been
replaced/deprecated.
We assign labels to indicate the status of the specification, not the
status of a service that might use it.
But the sp
On 1/6/2011 12:40 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
Historic might imply that they were once in service, but have later been
replaced/deprecated.
We assign labels to indicate the status of the specification, not the status of
a service that might use it.
We say 'experimental' to mean that we thinks i
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 prop
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 considera
Before today, Bob Braden wrote:
> Historic might imply that they were once in service,
> but have later been replaced/deprecated. In fact, these
> protocols were always, and are still, *experimental*.
> It would seem logical to assign them the Experimental
> category and be done with it.
+1
- Original Message -
From: "Lixia Zhang"
To: "Bob Braden"
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 10:08 PM
>
> On Jan 6, 2011, at 12:40 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
> >
> > Historic might imply that they were once in service, but have later been
replaced/deprecated. In fact, these protocols were a
I'm not keen to start a language war, but. . .
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 08:39:37AM +0200, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> Moreover, 'obsoleted' means the same as 'deprecated' or 'non-current'
> (see http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/obsolete/ or
> http://dictionary.sensagent.com/obsolete/en-en/#syno
On 1/7/11 7:39 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> 07.01.2011 8:30, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>> I have also seen attempts to make a standard Historic with the
>> supposed reason being to "clear things out" for the introduction of
>> some better replacement. That seems like just nonsense to me. If it is
07.01.2011 8:30, Donald Eastlake wrote:
I have also seen attempts to make a standard Historic with the
supposed reason being to "clear things out" for the introduction of
some better replacement. That seems like just nonsense to me. If it is
so obvious that a replacement is superior, the replacem
I have also seen attempts to make a standard Historic with the
supposed reason being to "clear things out" for the introduction of
some better replacement. That seems like just nonsense to me. If it is
so obvious that a replacement is superior, the replacement document
can do the move of earlier do
06.01.2011 23:45, Doug Ewell wrote:
Lixia Zhang wrote:
PS: on the other hand, what would a "historical status" imply? the ideas
obsolete?
Every now and then, someone proposes to move a given RFC to Historic,
not merely to reflect an observation that a process or protocol is
obsolete, but as
Lixia Zhang wrote:
> PS: on the other hand, what would a "historical status" imply? the ideas
> obsolete?
Every now and then, someone proposes to move a given RFC to Historic,
not merely to reflect an observation that a process or protocol is
obsolete, but as an active attempt to deprecate it,
On Jan 6, 2011, at 12:40 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
>
> Historic might imply that they were once in service, but have later been
> replaced/deprecated. In fact, these protocols were always, and are still,
> *experimental*. It would seem logical to assign them the Experimental
> category and be do
On 01/06/2011 15:40 EST, Bob Braden wrote:
>
> Historic might imply that they were once in service, but have later been
> replaced/deprecated. In fact, these protocols were always, and are
> still, *experimental*. It would seem logical to assign them the
> Experimental category and be done with i
Historic might imply that they were once in service, but have later been
replaced/deprecated. In fact, these protocols were always, and are
still, *experimental*. It would seem logical to assign them the
Experimental category and be done with it.
Bob Braden
On 1/5/2011 9:44 PM, Mykyta Yev
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
31 matches
Mail list logo
