On Jan 8, 2011, at 7:46 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: 08.01.2011 17:37, Lixia Zhang wrote: 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).
First of all, I've consulted the initial author of it, John White, and some other people off-list.
With all the respect to John, he is not among the original authors of NETBLT RFC. Wonder if you can tell me who are the other people that you contacted?
The NETBLT spec found in RFC998 *as is* could not be appropriate for current Internet,
It was not meant to. It's for discussion and comment.
As I already quoted this in my earlier msg: RFC998 stated clearly that
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.
so there is a need for another one. In the next 3 months, I think, we will be a work on it. Moreover, we plan to submit it as Independent Submission as Experimental RFC, despites it mentions the Standards Track one.
Mykyta
I am confused here: in your message posted on Jan 7 (2 days ago), you said
As for NETBLT, I am strongly against moving it to Historic, rather than specifying by Standards Track Document. There has been one attempt to do that by John White in 1995 (see draft-white-protocol-stack), but IMO (that likes strange, but...) we can align this document with the most current needs of Internet and publish.
Mykyta
but now you changed your mind?
Lixia
|