Subject: [Pppext] Old RFCs going to Historic

From: James Carlson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:06:58 -0500

A fair number of older RFCs are being promoted to Historic status,
many of which may well be used in PPP implementations.

	http://www.ofcourseimright.com/oldstandards.html

Send mail to old-standards <AT-SIGN> alvestrand.no if you would like
to see any of those things _not_ become Historic.  For reference, here
are the (vaguely) PPP-related ones, and the current status as of this
moment.

Those marked with "X" below have NOT been stricken from the list and
will become Historic unless someone speaks up.  This includes
AppleTalk, IPX, and the PPP MIBs.  Those marked with "?" have
questions surrounding their future usefulness and deployment.  If you
know anything about them, please let the 'old-standards' list know.

  RFC1144 Compressing TCP/IP headers for low-speed serial links
  RFC1332 The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (IPCP)
  RFC1377 The PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol (OSINLCP)
X RFC1378 The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)
X RFC1471 The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Link Control
	  Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol
X RFC1472 The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Security
	  Protocols of the Point-to-Point Protocol
X RFC1473 The Definitions of Managed Objects for the IP Network
	  Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol
X RFC1474 The Definitions of Managed Objects for the Bridge Network
	  Control Protocol of the Point-to-Point Protocol
X RFC1552 The PPP Internetworking Packet Exchange Control Protocol
	  (IPXCP)
X RFC1553 Compressing IPX Headers Over WAN Media (CIPX)
  RFC1570 PPP LCP Extensions
X RFC1582 Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits
X RFC1598 PPP in X.25  
X RFC1618 PPP over ISDN  
? RFC1663 PPP Reliable Transmission
X RFC1696 Modem Management Information Base (MIB) using SMIv2
X RFC1742 AppleTalk Management Information Base II
X RFC1763 The PPP Banyan Vines Control Protocol (BVCP)
X RFC1764 The PPP XNS IDP Control Protocol (XNSCP)
X RFC1793 Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits
  RFC1962 The PPP Compression Control Protocol (CCP)
? RFC1968 The PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP)
? RFC1973 PPP in Frame Relay

-- 
James Carlson, IP Systems Group?               <[email-masked]>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.234W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.497N   Fax +1 781 442 1677

_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext

---

From: James Carlson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:59:52 -0500

Carsten Bormann writes:
> > AppleTalk, IPX, and the PPP MIBs.
> 
> This makes me rather curious about the intent.

I came to this rather late, by way of a cc on someone else's reply to
the list.  I think the intent is to make as many old things Historic
as possible, and the chosen method is to mark everything prior to some
date (2000, perhaps) as "on the list," and request that those who care
about those older documents complain to the document editor.

> AT and IPX may be historic, but if you still have them, these documents 
> describe the currently agreed way how to send them over PPP, no?
> (But then, I don't care about AT or IPX.)

They do continue to describe those protocols, and RFCs are effectively
immutable, but I think the intent is to say that new implementations
ought not bother with them.

> > X RFC1618 PPP over ISDN
> 
> While this is not a particularly great document, I believe it is the 
> standard for PPP over ISDN (B channels).
> (In case you don't know, ISDN is 20 years old but definitely *not* any 
> more historic at this time than is analog telephony.)
> 
> Something is getting derailed about this whole de-crufting process here.

That's somewhat close to what I said in an earlier message to that
group.

As for RFC 1618, it has had trouble with reality (is octet sync really
recommended with ISDN?), but perhaps needs to be removed from the
list.

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:49:31 +0100

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 15:10:45 +0100

> As for RFC 1618, it has had trouble with reality

Yes...
Apparently, the (US-based) author was rather confused about ISDN.
A common situation in 1994, so I don't blame him.

> (is octet sync really
> recommended with ISDN?),

Well, 1618 says this should be done only in the presence of prior 
configuration (default is bit-sync, which is unfortunate, but reality).

> but perhaps needs to be removed from the
> list.

Yes.
The "right thing" would be to write this simple document up again, 
removing all the cruft (octet-sync, BONDING, V.120 -- does anybody else 
feel a dozen years younger? :-), and moving it on to DS.
*THAT* would be de-crufting.

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: Karl Fox <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:28:46 -0500

On Nov 29, 2004, at 8:59 AM, James Carlson wrote:
> ... and RFCs are effectively

Does this really apply to the MIBs too?  Is it really true that nobody 
implements or uses these?

Karl