Do you intend the same basic meaning, i.e. please don't use this in anything new, we may remove it in the future (that's two points, not one)? -- 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: Michelle Cotton [mailto:michelle.cotton@xxxxxxxxx] 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. >******************************************************************** >