I am not sure why this rush to get a new internet draft out, without consultation to any of its original authors, and given the rough consensus on ietf mailing list discussion is to keep NETBLT RFC as is (experimental). Lixia On Jan 8, 2011, at 3:00 AM, Internet-Drafts@xxxxxxxx wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > > Title : Network Block Transfer Protocol (NETBLT) > Author(s) : J. White, M. Yevstifeyev > Filename : draft-white-tsvwg-netblt-00.txt > Pages : 34 > Date : 2011-01-08 > > This document is a specification of version 5 of Network Block > Transfer Protocol (NETBLT). This protocol was firstly specified in > RFC 969, that has been made obsolete by RFC 998. Nevertheless, none > of these documents match current Internet Standards and are > deprecated. This document aligns the NETBLT specification with the > most current Internet Standards and obsoletes RFC 998. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-white-tsvwg-netblt-00.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > <Mail Attachment>_______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf