Subject: Re: Old transport-layer protocols to Historic?

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 07:13:36 +0200

07.01.2011 21:53, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Mykyta,
>
>
> On Jan 5, 2011, at 9:44 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> There have been a discussion on tsvwg mailing list about old transport layer protocols - exactly IRTP (RFC938), RDP (RFC908,1151) and NETBLT (RFC998). Initially there have been proposed to define IANA considerations for them. But after a discussion it was found out that it would be better to move them to Historic. I am writing to request more wider discussion on this topic.
> I see little value even thinking about this.  It's looks like a "make work" project to me.  Just because something is "old", doesn't mean it is "historic" in the sense the label is used in the IETF.
>
> Regarding RDP (RFC908, RFC1151), of which I am one of the authors, both are currently labeled as Experimental.  I do not see any reason to change that.
>
> Bob
>
>
Dear all,

RFC2026 mentions:

>   A specification that has been superseded by a more recent
>     specification or is for any other reason considered to be obsolete is
>     assigned to the "Historic" level.
and gives 2 reasons for making the RFC Historic: 1) RFC is obsoleted 
(superseded) or 2) obsolete.

Obsoleted = made obsolete. This is obvious. When one RFC replaces 
another, it obsoletes it, and second becomes obsolete.

What is obsolete (adj.)? Obsolete = deprecated, outdated, out of use, 
non-current, etc.

Moreover, RFC2026 does not set any other guidelines for setting the 
Historic status. That is why if the protocol is out of use, even 
specified by Experimental RFC, it is a reason to move its spec. to 
Historic, in accordance with RFC2026.

All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

>> There is quite strong consensus that IRTP should be Historic. There is a registered draft on this topic:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-tsvwg-irtp-to-historic/
>>
>> But as for others it should be discussed. Moreover, maybe anyone knows some other old transport-layer protocols that are no longer in use?
>>
>> Please copy tour answer to [email-masked]
>>
>> All the best,
>> Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 07:35:58 +0200

08.01.2011 7:26, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>
> On 1/6/2011 12:40 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
>> Historic might imply that they were once in service, but have later been
>> replaced/deprecated.
>
>
> We assign labels to indicate the status of the specification, not the 
> status of a service that might use it.
But the specification without service is nothing. We should look at the 
service using it, first of all.
>
> We say 'experimental' to mean that we thinks it's ok to play around 
> with the spec and maybe that we are hoping to get further information 
> about it.  But it also means that we very much caution about use.  
> It's our "caveat emptor" label.
>
> We say 'historic' when we frankly think the spec should now not be 
> used, for whatever reason and no matter its prior status.
>
> These both are affirmative labels.  I too do not think we should use 
> them for "housekeeping" and the mere fact that a specification is not 
> used does not mean that it shouldn't be used.
>
> To the extent that having a spec around -- especially one on standards 
> track -- might seem to conflict with another, preferred spec, then 
> it's worth considering making the one that is out of favor become 
> historic.  The same holds for specifications that are now deemed 
> problematic.
But it is the same what is with IRTP. RFC938 is obviously not acceptable 
to be used in the current Internet. In order it remains useful, it's 
needed to be rewritten or moved to Historic. And I really do not 
understand how did it become Experimental. The first notices of current 
classification system appeared in RFC1370, while this spec is RFC938.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>
> But none of this is about propriety or neatness or a community OCD 
> neurosis.  It needs to be about pragmatic guidance to the community.
>
> d/
>

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 18:19:29 +0200

08.01.2011 18:12, Lixia Zhang wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>
>> and gives 2 reasons for making the RFC Historic: 1) RFC is obsoleted (superseded) or 2) obsolete.
>>
>> Obsoleted = made obsolete. This is obvious. When one RFC replaces another, it obsoletes it, and second becomes obsolete.
>>
>> What is obsolete (adj.)? Obsolete = deprecated, outdated, out of use, non-current, etc.
>>
>> Moreover, RFC2026 does not set any other guidelines for setting the Historic status.
> that is because only standard track protocols need such guidelines
Where is that, once more?
>> That is why if the protocol is out of use, even specified by Experimental RFC, it is a reason to move its spec. to Historic, in accordance with RFC2026.
> First, you said RFC2026 did *not* say anything on moving non-standard protocols to Historic status.
>
> Then you said Experimental RFCs need to move to Historic, in accordance with RFC2026.
RFC2026 in Section 4.2.4. says nothing about this.  It is indefinite, 
per this section.  What you said 'first' was what do all think.  And the 
second what I do.  And maybe not need to move but may be moved.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> Doesn't this sound self-conflicting to you?
>
> Lixia
>
>

---

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 08:12:48 -0800

Lixia

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 11:53:06 -0800

Mykyta,

Bob

---

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 10:04:30 -0800

On 1/7/2011 9:35 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> But it is the same what is with IRTP. RFC938 is obviously not 
> acceptable to be used in the current Internet. In order it remains 
> useful, it's needed to be rewritten or moved to Historic. And I really 
> do not understand how did it become Experimental. The first notices of 
> current classification system appeared in RFC1370, while this spec is 
> RFC938.
>
> Mykyta Yevstifeyev

You don't know how it became Experimental? Because it *was* an 
experiment. The entire TCP/IP protocol suite was once upon a time an 
experiment. (You might note that those people who have written in 
opposition to your proposed reclassification -- Dave Crocker, Bob 
Hinden, Lixia Zhang, ...) were participants  in that experiment). There 
was a significant population of people funded to do Internet research in 
the IETF until the early 1990s.  (And the line between research and 
standards was sometimes a bit fuzzy as Internet technology evolved.) You 
are trying to imkpose a nice neat order on the rather chaotic history of 
early Internet protocol development. That is not appropriate, so please 
stop writing messages aboujt it. I for one believe that we should 
respect the untidy history of the early Internet and the RFC series 
proudly as part of the heritage of the IETF and the larger Internet 
technical community.

Bob Braden

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 08:27:54 +0200

>> Regarding RDP (RFC908, RFC1151), of which I am one of the authors, both are currently labeled as Experimental.  I do not see any reason to change that.
Bob, all,

Personally I don't support the idea to move the RDP to Historic. The 
initial idea was to defined IANA procedures for assignment RDP ports, 
that remains undefined. But when I presented the corresponding draft to 
tsvwg, many claimed that it would be better to move it ti Historic 
rather than specify IANA procedures for it. Currently, there is a draft 
on this topic:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yevstifeyev-rdp-ports-registry-02

My initial idea was just that.  And you, Bob, do you find this topic 
interesting (RDP ports assignment) as the developer of RDP?

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

>>> Please copy tour answer [email-masked]
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>> Mykyta Yevstifeyev

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 01:06:10 -0700

Mykyta,

RDP is still in use (I know of companies using it).  It is
used heavily as a transport for a "popular brand" of NAS for
dial access call control and was a precursor to MEGACO/H.248.
RDP was the initial transport used for gateway control (such
as SGCP) until SCTP was developed.  Many commercial gateways
still support these older pre-standard (to MEGACO) control
protocols.  Some older devices still provisioned in the network
only support the older protocols.

Yah, I know it was EXPERIMENTAL, but we had nothing before SCTP
that would fit the bill.  Its limitations was one of the driving
forces behind developing SCTP.  One of the original protocol
attempts abandonned before SCTP was based on RDP.

Please leave RDP alone.

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email-masked]
http://www.openss7.org/

---

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 09:55:49 -0800

The Subject line of this discussion should read: "Experimental 
transport-layer protocols to Historic?"  That might reduce some of the 
confusion.

The questions under discussion seem to be:
1.	What are the IANA rules for number assignments to new
	Experimental protocols?  (Preumably the same rules would
	hold for old Experimental protocols).

2. Under what circumstances might (or should) the category of a
	Technical Spec be changed from Experimental to Historic?

	The traditional IETF view, which was handed down from the
	Internet Protocol Czar, has been "almost never", and only
	when wide use of the experimental protocol might
	pose real and present danger to the Internet.  One could
	take that view about NETBLT, but personally I think that
	would be an over-reaction.

Bob Braden

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:21:38 +0200

Bob,

> 	hold for old Experimental protocols).
Do you think there are some special rules for creation of new
regsitries for experimental protocols? Could you please refer to any
of documents on this topic?
> 	Technical Spec be changed from Experimental to Historic?
The same as below.
> 	would be an over-reaction.
I personally think there is no useful way in moving NETBLT spec to
historic, as well as RDP. I consider that useful only for IRTP. Do you
think there is still a need in such protocol? what has it been made
for?

Mykyta.

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:32:37 +0100

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mykyta Yevstifeyev" <[email-masked]>
To: "Bob Braden" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 10:21 AM
> think there is still a need in such protocol? what has it been made

So why have you posted to the ietf list that 

"There have been a discussion on tsvwg mailing list about old transport 
layer protocols - exactly IRTP (RFC938), RDP (RFC908,1151) and NETBLT 
(RFC998). Initially there have been proposed to define IANA 
considerations for them. But after a discussion it was found out that it 
would be better to move them to Historic. I am writing to request more 
wider discussion on this topic."

Tom Petch

> > Bob Brade

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:14:04 +0200

Hello,

Please find some comments below.

11.01.2011 13:32, t.petch wrote:
> From: "Mykyta Yevstifeyev"<[email-masked]>
> To: "Bob Braden"<[email-masked]>
> Cc:<[email-masked]>
>> 2011/1/10, Bob Braden<[email-masked]>:
See my last sentence in the citation.  I have written that to request 
more discussion on this topic.

Mykyta

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:45:56 -0500

> RDP is still in use

> was the initial transport used for gateway control (such as SGCP) until
> SCTP was developed.

> Many commercial gateways still support these older pre-standard (to
> MEGACO) control protocols.  Some older devices still provisioned in the
> network only support the older protocols.

> but we had nothing before SCTP that would fit the bill.  Its limitations
> was one of the driving forces behind developing SCTP.

So RDP is a useful and deployed pre-standards protocol that was one of the
driving forces behind a successful standardization effort.  But newer
applications that need that kind of transport instead use the standard,
SCTP.

I don't know how one could possibly make a stronger case for classifying the
RDP spec as Historic!

However, I do agree with John Klensin's remark that reclassification is not
worth the energy it takes.