Subject: Re: [newtrk] List of Old Standards to be retired

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:34:16 -0800 (PST)

*>
  *> It's probably necessary to do a full dependency analysis to do this
  *> right.
  *>

If it's not broken, why break it?

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

---

From: stanislav shalunov <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Dec 2004 18:15:11 -0500

William Allen Simpson <[email-masked]> writes:

>   RFC1598       PPP in X.25
>   RFC1618       PPP over ISDN
>
> At one time, these were incredibly important in the 3rd world, and
> some parts of Europe and Japan. Is X.25 completely non-existant
> today?  Heck, folks were running X.25 over ISDN D-channels, and
> those still exist on every PRI circuit....

For what it's worth, the AX.25 protocol number in IPv4 is still used
by some poor souls.  (Carries just about 3MB/day on the Abilene
backbone and used to be several times more.)

http://netflow.internet2.edu/weekly/longit/protocols93-octets.png

-- 
Stanislav Shalunov		http://www.internet2.edu/~shalunov/

This message is designed to be viewed upside down.
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:01:59 +0200 (EET)

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Folks, I took a look at the first posting, and was surprised at those
> where I'm personally knowledgable. 
> RFC1378       The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)
>
> It was widely implemented.  I still use this.  My $1000 HP LaserJet 4ML
> works fine, it hasn't run out its original cartridge, but I need
> appletalk for it. 
>
> RFC1552       The PPP Internetworking Packet Exchange Control Protocol 
> (IPXCP)
> RFC1553       Compressing IPX Headers Over WAN Media (CIPX)
>
> Again, widely implemented.  Sure, IPX wasn't a very good protocol, but
> I'm aware of rather a large number of sites that still run it.  Sure,
> Novell refused to divulge the contents of some of the fields, so we
> just had to carry undifferentiated bytes around, but it worked....
>
> RFC1598       PPP in X.25
> RFC1618       PPP over ISDN
>
> some parts of Europe and Japan. 
> Is X.25 completely non-existant today?  Heck, folks were running X.25
> over ISDN D-channels, and those still exist on every PRI circuit....

There's certainly no illusion that these protocols are not being used 
in some part(s) of the universe.

The question is really whether the IETF is interested in maintaining 
them any longer, and whether we expect significant new deployments of 
these protocols.

Marking the document historic does not take it "away" from deployment 
-- marking document as historic doesn't hurt at all (except 
procedurally, when used as a normative reference, but then we have to 
do some work in any case if the reference was outdated).

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:07:45 +0100

--On 17. desember 2004 10:21 -0500 William Allen Simpson 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> This must be some new redefinition of the meaning of a Historic RFC.
> In the past, it meant "don't do it this way anymore, we no longer
> recommend it, there's another way to accomplish the same goal".
> So, for the PPP items listed, what's the better way to accomplish the
> same goal?

No, it's the old definition of Historic.

The definition "Historic = Bad" is a change that has been encouraged by the 
practice of not routinely making documents Historic.

This is, to my mind, no more sensible than the twisting of "Experimental = 
Kiss of Death" that was the vogue some years ago, which we seem to have 
successfully untwisted.

I think it makes sense for Historic to mean what RFC 2026 said it was.
And if it does not, we should explicitly decide to say otherwise.

                  Harald

.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:00:15 -0500

--On Thursday, 16 December, 2004 22:30 -0500 Robert Moskowitz
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> At 05:53 PM 12/16/2004, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> 
> 
>>  RFC1828       IP Authentication using Keyed MD5
>>  RFC1829       The ESP DES-CBC Transform
>> 
>> Now *THESE* were historic when written!  Due to US government
>> pressure, it took years (and big plenary protests) for them
>> to be published!  Especially without the 40-bit export
>> restrictions!
> 
> The attack against these was presented at the Danvers IETF.
> 
> I had requested that they go to historic (along with 1827)
> once the 2401 series of IPsec RFCs were published.  The
> request fell through the bit mask.

Then these need the "bad"  designation, not just the "not really
interesting any more" one.  And that, presumably, requires a
"1828/1829 considered harmful" document, or at least a paragraph
and a place to put it.

   john

.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:01:59 +0200 (EET)

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: William Allen Simpson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:21:45 -0500

The IPSec items have another way.  Indeed, we had a better way at the
time of publication, but couldn't get the IESG to publish 3DES or SHA1
or any other more robust algorithm as a Proposed Standard.

-- 
William Allen Simpson
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32

---

From: William Allen Simpson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:53:28 -0500

Bob Braden wrote:

>  *> Standards have been invented for creating markets.
>
>That's strange, all these years I thought standards were for
>interoperability.
>
>
>
Hear, Hear!

  RFC1598       PPP in X.25
  RFC1618       PPP over ISDN

Admittedly, some of this may be nostalgia, as X.25 was the second
protocol I ever implemented, circa 1978 before so much cruft was
saddled upon it through the "standardization" process.

It seems to me that besides the ossification of the IETF that keeps it
from getting much of anything worthwhile done, some folks have lost
sight of the "inter" part of networking.

Now *THESE* were historic when written!  Due to US government pressure,
it took years (and big plenary protests) for them to be published!
Especially without the 40-bit export restrictions!

At the time, I advocated Triple-DES to be the Proposed Standard,
since we already knew 56-bit DES was broken.  I requested Historic
status for these many years ago....

---

From: William Allen Simpson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:21:45 -0500

---

From: William Allen Simpson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:27:18 -0500

>"1828/1829 considered harmful" document, or at least a paragraph
Well, gosh and golly gee, I wrote an "ISAKMP considered harmful" about
6 years ago, and the IESG -- for the first time in its history --
ordered it removed from the internet-drafts repository (saying the
IETF wouldn't publish anything critical of the IETF process).

It was published as a Usenix ";login:" feature article instead....

I suspect Bob and I could have something in days!

---

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:30:22 -0500

I had requested that they go to historic (along with 1827) once the 2401
series of IPsec RFCs were published.  The request fell through the bit mask.

.

---

From: William Allen Simpson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:53:28 -0500

Hear, Hear!

  RFC1598       PPP in X.25
  RFC1618       PPP over ISDN

---

From: William Allen Simpson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:19:18 -0500

> No, it's the old definition of Historic.
Good.  For clarity, as I did the above response from decade old memory,
that would be:

   * A TS that is considered to be inappropriate for general use is
labeled "Not Recommended". This may be because of its limited
functionality, specialized nature, or historic status. [RFC-2026 p 11]

  * has been superceded by a more recent specification [RFC-2026 p 16]

  * or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete [RFC-2026 p 16]

> The definition "Historic = Bad" is a change that has been encouraged
> by the practice of not routinely making documents Historic.
>
> This is, to my mind, no more sensible than the twisting of
> "Experimental = Kiss of Death" that was the vogue some years ago,
> which we seem to have successfully untwisted.
>
We must be in agreement, although for some odd reason I thought you
were disagreeing with me.  That "no" confused me.  ;-)