idnits 2.17.1 draft-barber-uucp-project-conclusion-05.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing expiration date. The document expiration date should appear on the first and last page. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months document validity -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 4 longer pages, the longest (page 2) being 60 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Abstract section. ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (December 2000) is 8505 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 6 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group S. Barber 3 Internet Draft The UUCP Mapping Project 4 December 2000 6 The Conclusion of the UUCP Mapping Project 7 draft-barber-uucp-project-conclusion-05.txt 9 Status of this Memo 11 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 12 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 14 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 15 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 16 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 17 Drafts. 19 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 20 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 21 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference 22 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 24 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 25 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 27 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 30 Motivation for This Memo 32 The UUCP Mapping Project started in the early 1980s as a means to 33 facilitate the exchange of electronic mail among sites using the UUCP 34 store-and-forward transport mechanism. This UUCP software, originally 35 part of the UNIX operating system became available on a variety of 36 operating systems and platforms, from large mainframe to small home 37 PC's. This was done by creating a single database of systems 38 connected to each other via UUCP and then using path building 39 software (such as pathalias) to determine the optimal path from one 40 system to another. Email addresses using this system incorporated the 41 use of the path as part of the address. 43 With the evolution of the Internet into mainstream use, the use of 44 UUCP for the exchange of electronic mail has been significantly 45 reduced. Today, UUCP is primarily used to link systems that are not 46 on the Internet to a nearby system that is connected. By use of mail 47 exchange resource records in the domain name system, these off-net 48 systems can use the now-standard Internet email address format. 50 Concluding the Project 52 Due to the fact that the maps are no longer widely used, the 53 volunteers that make up the project have decided it is time to close 54 down. The shutdown of the project will take three steps. 56 The first step was the freezing of the system database. This took 57 place during the month of August 2000. No further changes to the 58 system database have been accepted. 60 The second step was be the last postings of the system database to 61 the newsgroup comp.mail.maps. A final posting was made during the 62 month of September 2000. 64 The final step was the removal of the newsgroup comp.mail.maps as a 65 valid newsgroup. This was done during the month of November 2000. 67 IETF Documents that Reference the Project or the Maps 69 RFC 915 describes a mail path service and specifically references 70 pathalias and indirectly the maps maintained by the project. 71 Following the conclusion of the project, the data returned by these 72 servers will no longer be updated based on data maintained by the 73 UUCP Project. 75 RFC 976 references the UUCP Project. The centralized registration 76 operation referenced in this RFC has been concluded. 78 RFC 1168 describes the database aspect of the UUCP Project and makes 79 specific reference to pathalias, EUNET and JUNET. 81 RFC 1480 make note that Internet US Domain registration is not 82 affiliated with the registration of UUCP Map entries. It also 83 contains an example of a sample UUCP Map entry as an illustration of 84 an inappropriate registration for the US Domain. 86 RFC 1588 makes reference to the UUCP Maps as something that could be 87 returned by NETFIND. 89 RFC 1876 makes reference to the UUCP Maps, though it suggests that 90 the DNS could be used to contain the location information available 91 in the maps. 93 Acknowledgements 95 A number of individuals have been instrumental in making the UUCP 96 Project successful. Principle among them are Steve Bellovin and Peter 97 Honeyman, the creators of pathalias which is the most popular 98 software available for building paths from the system database. In 99 RFC 976, Mark R. Horton established the ground rules for the format 100 of email messages exchanged via UUCP. 102 In 1984, the USENIX Association provided the initial funding the 103 launch the UUCP Project initially led by Karen Summers-Horton. The 104 project originally distributed software and provided domain name 105 registration services in addition to the mapping project. Mark R. 106 Horton ran the project starting in 1985 until the registration and 107 software distribution functions were shutdown in 1988. 109 Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, provided facilities for 110 the project for many years. Mel Pleasant was the manager of the 111 project before I succeeded him. 113 There have been many volunteers who have contributed time (and money, 114 in some cases) to the project. Here is the list I have been able to 115 create. I apologize to anyone who may have been left off. It was most 116 certainly an accident. 118 Tohru Asami Dave Davey 120 Jesse Asher Robert Elz 122 Piet Beertema Paul Graham 124 Bill Blue Ed Hew 126 John Bossert Hokey 128 Scott Bradner Nike Horton 130 Kent Brodie C. Bryan Ivey 132 Malcolm Carlock Jeff Janock 134 Lee Damon Berry Kercheval 136 Richard E. Depew Rob Kolstad 138 Erik E. Fair Bob Leffler 140 Ken Herron K. Richard Magill 142 Haesoon Cho Mikel Manitius 143 Doug McCallum Mike Wexler 145 Mark Moraes Rayan Zachariassen 147 Steve Morenberg Eric Ziegast 149 Jim Murray David Paul Zimmerman 151 Mike O'Connor 153 Todd Ogasawara 155 John Owens 157 Bob Page 159 Sanjay H. Pathak 161 John Quarterman 163 Rob Robertson 165 Tim Rosmus 167 Partono Rudiarto 169 David Schmidt 171 Larry Snyder 173 Gene Spafford 175 Aris Stathakis 177 Kris R. Stephens 179 Karen Summers-Horton 181 Gil Tene 183 Tim Thompson 185 Jeff Wabik 187 Peter Wan 189 Lauren Weinstein 190 Security Considerations 192 It is possible that email could be lost or misdelivered by those that 193 continue to make use of the UUCP Mapping Project map data. One of the 194 reasons for the publication of this memo is to highlight the fact 195 that the data is no longer useful and alternative mechanisms must be 196 employed to improve the possibility that the mail will be delievered 197 correctly. 199 Author's Address: 201 Stan Barber 202 The UUCP Mapping Project 203 P.O. Box 300481 204 Houston, Texas 77230-0481 205 sob@uucp.org