Re: Last Call: Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol to Historic

To: Steve Deering <deering at cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol to Historic
From: Craig Partridge <craig at aland.bbn.com>
Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 15:33:14 -0700
Cc: iesg at ietf.org, ietf at ietf.org
Delivery-date: Sun, 03 May 1998 18:34:06 -0400
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 01 May 1998 21:43:27 PDT." <v03110700b1705105d703@[171.69.199.124]>

Steve:

It seems to me we are in a strange space.

The current DVMRP RFC is so out of date that we don't want people using
it.

But there's no protocol specification to replace it (given that
Internet-Drafts are not considered long-term documents).

It seems to me we are risking the message that DVMRP is dead if we simply
reclassify the RFC, without a new spec.

Assuming the new spec is not yet ready, why not issue a one page RFC saying
"DVMRP is alive, but the RFC spec is dead" -- make it the update to the
RFC, and then classify them both as Historic when the new spec comes out?

Craig

References:
- Re: Last Call: Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol to Historic
  - From: Steve Deering

Prev by Date: (no subject)
Next by Date: O&M Open Area list created
Previous by thread: Re: Last Call: Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol to
Next by thread: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-00.txt
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: Last Call: Distance Vector Multicast Routing Protocol to Historic

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.