On 1/4/2016 12:53 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 07:31:13 -0800, The IESG said: >> >> The IESG has received a request from the TCP Maintenance and Minor >> Extensions WG (tcpm) to consider the following document: >> - 'Moving Outdated TCP Extensions and TCP-related Documents to Historic >> and Informational Status' >> <draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed-03.txt> as Informational RFC >> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >> ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2016-01-18. Exceptionally, comments may be >> sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the >> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > The draft says in section 2.1: > > o [RFC1078] U, "TCP Port Service Multiplexer (TCPMUX)" should be > deprecated, because: > .... > * There are no known client-side deployments. > > SGI's Data Migration Facility does in fact use tcpmux on port 1 for client > systems to contact the DMF server for out-of-band administrative functions. > However, this usage is (as far as I know, after been the admin of a DMF system > for 5 years) strictly confined to intercommunication between the clients and > server of a DMF cluster, and I know of no other vendors or packages that > try to talk to DMF over tcpmux (everything uses the SGI-provided DMF client > tools to do the heavy lifting, and then operates on the output of the tool). > > Whether that should be sufficient to deter moving RFC1078 to deprecated is a > question for somebody else to answer. This sounds like an opportunity for SGI to shift over to DNS-SD. We can change the line about "no known" to "only one known". We could refer to DNS-SD going to PS as a rationale for obsoleting TCPMUX if necessary, IMO. Joe