---- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "'Michelle Cotton'" <michelle.cotton@xxxxxxxxx>; "'Dearlove, Christopher (UK)'" <chris.dearlove@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "'t.p.'" <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "'ietf'" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:13 PM Subject: RE: "Deprecate" > That would be great. > > Should 4020bis have a gating normative reference on 5226bis? Tricky; it would mean we are approving 4020bis without knowing what it means, until 5226bis is approved. Tom Petch > > Adrian > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > > Michelle Cotton > > Sent: 29 August 2013 15:53 > > To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); t.p.; ietf > > Subject: Re: "Deprecate" > > > > We are working on 5226bis right now and have a plans to discuss the term > > in there. > > > > --Michelle Cotton > > > > Michelle Cotton > > Manager, IANA Services > > ICANN > > > > > > > > On 8/29/13 5:22 AM, "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" > > <chris.dearlove@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > >It's definitely an ISO term, I see it used for features of C++. > > > > > >There's then discussion even there of what it means. It is, I think, > > >meant to be used for "we don't think you should use this, there's > > >something better, and this is a warning that it may get removed in a > > >future version". In the case of computer languages there is an additional > > >possibility of "your compiler may emit a warning if you persist in using > > >it". > > > > > >But the only major feature (export) removed in the last C++ version went > > >straight from "part of the standard, but only one compiler ever > > >implemented it, and thus found out it was a bad realisation of an idea" > > >to removed, with no intermediate deprecated stage. And other features > > >just hang around deprecated. So it really doesn't guarantee anything in > > >that instance, neither than if deprecated will go, not if not deprecated > > >won't go. > > > > > >-- > > >Christopher Dearlove > > >Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group > > >Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability > > >BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre > > >West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK > > >Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 > > >chris.dearlove@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx | http://www.baesystems.com > > > > > >BAE Systems (Operations) Limited > > >Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace > > >Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK > > >Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687 > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > > >t.p. > > >Sent: 29 August 2013 12:56 > > >To: ietf > > >Subject: "Deprecate" > > > > > >----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- > > >This message originates from outside our organisation, > > >either from an external partner or from the internet. > > >Keep this in mind if you answer this message. > > >Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters > > >for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages. > > >-------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > >I recently saw 'deprecate' used in an IANA Considerations and turned to > > >"IANA Considerations" [RFC5226] to see how it was defined only to find > > >no mention of it there. I am used to the term from SMI, as quoted > > >below, but that seems not quite right, in that a deprecated IANA entry > > >never disappears, as in > > >http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi- > > number > > >s-5 > > > > > >Are there other, perhaps better definitions of the term 'deprecated' in > > >use outside SMI (and yes, I know about praying nuns!)? > > > > > >Tom Petch > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@xxxxxxxxx> > > >To: "IPv6 Maintanence" <ipv6@xxxxxxxx> > > >Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 3:32 PM > > >Subject: "Deprecate" > > > > > > > > >> At the mike a moment ago, I referred to an existing formal definition > > >of "deprecate". For the record, the reference is to RFC 1158, which > > >reads: > > >> > > >> 3.1. Deprecated Objects > > >> > > >> In order to better prepare implementors for future changes in the > > >> MIB, a new term "deprecated" may be used when describing an object. > > >> A deprecated object in the MIB is one which must be supported, but > > >> one which will most likely be removed from the next version of the > > >> MIB (e.g., MIB-III). > > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > >> ipv6@xxxxxxxx > > >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >************************************************************* > > ******* > > >This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended > > >recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended > > >recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. > > >You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or > > >distribute its contents to any other person. > > >************************************************************* > > ******* > > > > >