----- Original Message ----- From: "Lixia Zhang" <lixia@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Bob Braden" <braden@xxxxxxx> Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> 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 always, and are still, *experimental*. It would seem logical to assign them the Experimental category and be done with it. > > > > Bob Braden > > I would like to second Bob's position here. > > as a co-author for NETBLT (RFC998): NETBLT was out of a research effort to answer the question: can we *fully* utilize long delay, high bandwidth (and potentially error prone) networks? NETBLT says and here is one way to do it. > Over the years (it's published in 1987) I have received comments from many people saying that they learned something interesting or even useful from NETBLT. The NETBLT paper (SIGCOMM 1987) got cited over 200 times. > > As RFC998 stated clearly: > > This document is published for discussion and comment, and does not > constitute a standard. The proposal may change and certain parts of > the protocol have not yet been specified; implementation of this > document is therefore not advised. > > I don't see any harm to keep it as is. Which is more or less the opinion I see expressed on the tsvwg list. Perhaps it needs raising it on yet other lists in order to get different answers:-) Tom Petch > > Lixia > PS: on the other hand, what would a "historical status" imply? the ideas obsolete? > > > > On 1/5/2011 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 > >> considerations for them. But after a discussion it was found out that it > >> would be better to move them to Historic. I am writing to request more > >> wider discussion on this topic. > >> > >> There is quite strong consensus that IRTP should be Historic. There is a > >> registered draft on this topic: > >> > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-tsvwg-irtp-to-historic/ > >> > >> But as for others it should be discussed. Moreover, maybe anyone knows > >> some other old transport-layer protocols that are no longer in use? > >> > >> Please copy tour answer to tsvwg@xxxxxxxx > >> > >> All the best, > >> Mykyta Yevstifeyev > >> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf