Subject: please post draft-meyer-rfc1266-historic-00.txt

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:24:48 -0800

Thanks,

	Dave

-----
INTERNET-DRAFT                                               David Meyer
draft-meyer-rfc1266-historic-00.txt                          Keyur Patel
2003.07.28                         

                Request to Move RFC1266 to Historic Status
 
     Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

    This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
    all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
 
    Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
    Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
    other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
    Drafts.
 
    Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
    and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
    time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
    material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
 
    The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
    http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
 
    The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
    http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
 
 0. Abstract

    RFC1266 [RFC1266], "Experience with the BGP Protocol" documents how 
    the requirements for advancing a routing protocol to Draft
    Standard have been satisfied by a BGP-3, a technology which
    is no longer commonly used. This document requests that RFC
    1266 be moved to historic status.   
 
 1. Details
 
    During a review of internet standards relating to BGP, it became
    apparent that the Experience with BGP-3 Protocol, as described in 
    RFC1266, is not common usage (if at all). Since this protocol has not
    been in use in the public internet for many years (it is obsoleted by
    BGP-4 [RFC1774]), it is proposed to reclassify it to historic.

 Patel, Meyer                Expires 2003.08.08                   [Page 1]     
 
 INTERNET-DRAFT  Request to Move RFC1266 to Historic Status     2003.07.28

 2. Security Considerations
 
    Moving RFC1266 to historic has no known effect on the security of the
    internet.
 
 3. References
 
    [RFC1774]	P. Traina (Editors) "BGP-4 Protocol Analysis"
                March, 1995.

 4. Authors' Addresses
 
    David Meyer
    Email: [email-masked]
 
    Keyur Patel
    Email: [email-masked]

 5. Full Copyright Statement
 
   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.
 
    This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others,
    and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in
    its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in
    whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above
    copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and
    derivative works.  However, this document itself may not be modified in any
    way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet
    Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
    developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights
    defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required
    to translate it into languages other than English.
 
    The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked
    by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
 
    This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS"
    basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE
    DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
    ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY

 Meyer, Patel                Expires 2003.08.08                   [Page 2]
 
 INTERNET-DRAFT  Request to Move RFC1266 to Historic Status     2003.07.28

    RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
    PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Patel, Meyer                 Expires 2003.08.08                  [Page 3]

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:32:12 -0800

there are many protocols which are no longer used.  there is a feeling
that they should only be moved to historic if their seeming current
could lead to damage.

randy

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:51:34 -0800

Randy,

>> that they should only be moved to historic if their seeming current

Got it, thanks. Maybe it's not worth doing these then. We can
just leave it as is.

Dave

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:54:34 -0800

i suspect that if we tried to make historic all unused protocols, the
drafting and administrative load would be larger than that of new
productive work.  then again, i could be talking through my hat as
usual.

randy

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:57:13 -0500

> that they should only be moved to historic if their seeming current

Cleanup wouldn't hurt.

RFC1772 could be move to historic but it hasn't yet been replaced.  :(

Curtis

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:56:47 -0500

It does, however, prevent someone from writing a "BGP-3 considered harmful"
draft. 

1/2 ;-)

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:01:17 -0800

>> productive work.  then again, i could be talking through my hat as

Nah, you make a very good point.

Dave

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:06:18 -0800

> Cleanup wouldn't hurt.

productive work would help.  we can choose how we spend our time.

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:31:01 -0500

> > productive work.  then again, i could be talking through my hat as

How about if after we update both rfc1771 and rfc1772, the WG puts
together a list of considered harmful and should be moved to historic
prior WG products.  A one time request to the IESG and RFC editor
should not be overwhelming.  BGP3 is just as historic as EGP.

Curtis

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:44:30 -0500

> should not be overwhelming.  BGP3 is just as historic as EGP.

Fine words of wisdom.

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies