----- Original Message ----- From: "t.p." <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "'Michelle Cotton'" <michelle.cotton@xxxxxxxxx>; "'ietf'" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:35 PM > ---- 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 > > > 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. Actually, it would be pointless as things stand since all that 5226bis has in it is "I was looking through the 5226bis draft and there is nothing in there about how to deprecate values in registries. Might be something good to add." which in itself would also seem to me pointless without a definition of "deprecated" in its use within IANA registries- which is where I came in:-( Tom Petch > > 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. > > > >************************************************************* > > > ******* > > > > > > > > > > >