Subject: Re: Draft Review Request - IRTP IANA Considerations

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 11:30:44 -0800

On 12/30/2010 9:48 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Firstly, happy New Year to all.
>
> Find some comments below.
>
> 28.12.2010 17:41, John C Klesin wrote:
>> Mykyta,
>>
>> Are you aware of NetBLT actually being in active use in the
>> public Internet, in the form documented in RFC 998?  I'm not,
>> but that sort of transport protocol isn't something I've paid
>> careful attention to in many years.
 >>
> Nevertheless, if there /is/ a protocol that uses the IANA-assigned
> values, there should be appropriate registries.

That's the key. This (and the other protocols you wrote similar docs 
for, e.g., NETBLT and RDP) don't use IANA-assigned values. They have 
values, but there was not a need for a registry for several reasons, 
including the fact that they were experimental.

At this point, they might be better moved to historic than anything 
else. There's no reason to have IANA track or manage their values.

Joe

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 13:00:48 +0200

On 2011-1-3, at 21:30, Joe Touch wrote:
> At this point, they might be better moved to historic than anything else. There's no reason to have IANA track or manage their values.

As an individual WG participant, I fully agree with Joe.

Lars

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 07:26:25 +0200

Lars

As I have mentioned before, I can agree with this only for IRTP (and 
maybe for RDP), but not NETBLT. I have recently made a draft moving IRTP 
to historic - here is a link

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-tsvwg-irtp-to-historic/

Maybe there is no doubt that this protocol should be Historic - so could 
you please sponsor the publication of this document as RFC?

Mykyta

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 21:56:32 -0800

On Jan 4, 2011, at 9:26 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]> wrote:

> As I have mentioned before, I can agree with this only for IRTP (and maybe for RDP), but not NETBLT. I have recently made a draft moving IRTP to historic - here is a link
> 
> Maybe there is no doubt that this protocol should be Historic - so could you please sponsor the publication of this document as RFC?

There us also neither a need nor a utility. Is there some other reason you ate trying so hard to get an RFC published?

Joe

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 12:44:10 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Touch" <[email-masked]>
To: "Mykyta Yevstifeyev" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 6:56 AM
On Jan 4, 2011, at 9:26 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> At this point, they might be better moved to historic than anything else.
There's no reason to have IANA track or manage their values.
> As I have mentioned before, I can agree with this only for IRTP (and maybe for
RDP), but not NETBLT. I have recently made a draft moving IRTP to historic -
here is a link
> Maybe there is no doubt that this protocol should be Historic - so could you
please sponsor the publication of this document as RFC?

There us also neither a need nor a utility. Is there some other reason you ate
trying so hard to get an RFC published?

Joe

You may have seen
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg65008.html
if not I suggest you take a look and respond.  It is a forward of
an IESG message for a Last Call.

Tom Petch

Joe=

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 08:14:37 -0800

> an IESG message for a Last Call.

I have not, but I'm also not available to monitor any one author's 
contributions. Others who are interested should take a look and respond.

Joe

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 07:35:08 +0200

05.01.2011 13:44, t.petch wrote:
> From: "Joe Touch"<[email-masked]>
> To: "Mykyta Yevstifeyev"<[email-masked]>
> Cc:<[email-masked]>;<[email-masked]>;<[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>
> On Jan 4, 2011, at 9:26 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>
If you mean IRTP IANA Considerations, I have asked to withdraw it. Now I 
propose tsvwg-irtp-to-historic-00.

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 07:36:56 +0200

If you mean IRTP IANA Considerations, I have asked to withdraw it. Now I 
propose tsvwg-irtp-to-historic-00. Moreover, I think that would be OK 
for RDP too.

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 00:02:00 -0800

On 1/5/2011 9:35 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
...
> propose tsvwg-irtp-to-historic-00.

I mean moving any of these to historic as well. There is neither a need 
nor a utility to doing this.

Joe

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 00:03:50 -0800

On 1/5/2011 9:36 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
...
> propose tsvwg-irtp-to-historic-00. Moreover, I think that would be OK

This too has no need nor utility.

They're experimental. They're outdated and not in use. They're not being 
replaced with anything. There's no point in doing *anything* associated 
with *any* of these protocols (IRTP, NETBLT, RDP).

Joe

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 13:00:12 +0200

06.01.2011 10:03, Joe Touch wrote:
> They're experimental. They're outdated and not in use. They're not 
> being replaced with anything. There's no point in doing *anything* 
> associated with *any* of these protocols (IRTP, NETBLT, RDP).
But there will be no harm if we mark them as Historic. That would just 
indicate that they are deprecated.

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 08:01:46 -0800

On Jan 6, 2011, at 3:00 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> They're experimental. They're outdated and not in use. They're not being replaced with anything. There's no point in doing *anything* associated with *any* of these protocols (IRTP, NETBLT, RDP).
> But there will be no harm if we mark them as Historic. That would just indicate that they are deprecated.

The harm is the time and resources you're wasting on what really does look like a desperate attempt to write an RFC - any RFC. 

You need to explain why these protocols *need* to be deprecated, and why that has to happen now, *except* as a way to stop you from chasing useless IANA support for these protocols. 

Joe

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 08:08:40 +0200

06.01.2011 18:01, Joe Touch wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2011, at 3:00 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>
Dear Joe,

Firstly, what draft we are speaking about? I consider the topic we are 
discussing to be 'moving old transport protocols to Historic'. So why 
you talk about IANA considerations for that?

Moreover, let me cite your message I received before:

> At this point, they might be *better moved to historic* than anything 
So on 3 January you say that they should be moved to Historic and now, 
after 3 days that there no need for this. Could you please claim your 
opinion clearly?

Lastly, toy said: "You need to explain why these protocols *need* to be 
deprecated, and why that has to happen now". Let me explain this issues. 
They are *already* deprecated and my draft explains reasons that caused 
it clearly. Read it please carefully.

All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 22:36:18 -0800

Mykyta,

> you talk about IANA considerations for that?

Your first drafts focused on creating IANA registries for experimental 
protocols that are not in current use in the public Internet.

>> else. There's no reason to have IANA track or manage their values.

Just because I prefer moving these to historic to creating IANA 
registries does NOT mean I think that they *****NEED***** to be moved to 
historic.

> it clearly. Read it please carefully.

The protocols you cited are currently listed as Experimental. 
"Deprecated" is something we do to protocols in the IETF, typically by 
moving them to Historic. I did not use the term to mean "how the public 
informally views these protocols.".

I.e., my statement above is equivalent to:

"You need to explain why these protocols *need* to be moved to 
Historic". Such actions are typically reserved for protocols in current 
use that are dangerous, or protocols that are in current use that are 
being replaced by other protocols. Neither is the case here. There is no 
need to "move to Historic" (i.e., "deprecate", within the IETF process) 
such protocols.

Joe

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:12:28 +0200

11.01.2011 13:28, t.petch wrote:
> From: "Mykyta Yevstifeyev"<[email-masked]>
> To: "Joe Touch"<[email-masked]>
> Cc: "t.petch"<[email-masked]>;<[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 10:24 AM
>
>> Joe,
>>
>> 2011/1/10, Joe Touch<[email-masked]>:
>>>
>>> On 1/7/2011 9:16 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> Historic". Such actions are typically reserved for protocols in
>>>>> current use that are dangerous, or protocols that are in current use
>>>>> that are being replaced by other protocols. Neither is the case here.
>>>>> There is no need to "move to Historic" (i.e., "deprecate", within the
>>>>> IETF process) such protocols.
>>>   >
>>>> See my message in IETF Discussion list.
>>> For those not on that list:
>>>
>>> - there are many others who share my view that moving experimental
>>> protocols to historic isn't useful per se, especially these protocols in
>>> particular
>> What 'these'? See that below.
>>> - your argument appears to be "the definition of Historic is incorrect"
>>>
>> Maybe a bit. It is more narrow and unclear than incorrect.
>>> Given your argument, it's difficult to appreciate why you claim it is
>>> urgent to move these protocols to a status whose definition you
>>> explicitly disagree with.
>> What protocols? Curently I'm speaking only about one - IRTP.
Joe,
> Yes, and that is one of the three (IRTP, NETBLT, RDP) that you
> raised on the ietf list under 'Old transport-layer protocols to Historic?'
It was to request the discussion on topics related with all these 
protocols.
> And as Joe has accurately pointed out, the ietf list has generated a lot
> of responses, from names I know well and have a high regard for,
> almost all of which say that this is a bad idea.  It is true that for
> NETBLT and for RDP concrete reasons have been given why this
> is a very bad idea; doubtless we coud find similar reasons for IRTP.
As well as I know, almost all responses concerned only RDP and NETBLT, 
and nearly nobody said anything about IRTP.  So I want to ask that now - 
what was IRTP developed for?  Is there any real reason it may be used?

Mykyta
> So you have proposed moving protocols to Historic and practically
> no-one agrees with what you say.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>> Mykyta
>>> Joe
>>>