Subject: Re: [newtrk] Re: updated draft on cruft / draft-alvestrand-newtrk-cruft-00.txt

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:09:45 -0400

Hi Eliot,

>COPS - no privacy capabilities.  TLS, while being mentioned, is not 
>in fact specified.  And it's not actually implemented by anyone. 
>This protocol is taken seriously by the folks in the ITU and yet as 
>specified is definitely substandard.

I don't believe that COPS would automatically get moved to Outdated 
under the current "cruft" document.  I supposed the the subsequent 
process might decide that it is "dangerous", but I don't think that 
decision would be a slam dunk, especially there is active interest in 
the ITU.

If the point of the "cruft" effort is just to clean out old, used 
stuff then it is, IMO, a mostly-harmless waste of time.

If the purpose is to reconsider every major standardization decision 
we've made in the last N years in light or more recent developments, 
then, IMO, it will be a colossal effort, potentially harmful and an 
even bigger waste of time.

Margaret

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:19:46 -0700

>> even bigger waste of time.

	The latter seems ill-advised. However, there is space for
	cleaning up. For example, how would you classify
	RFC 3166 (Request to Move RFC 1403 to Historic Status)?

	Dave

.