08.01.2011 18:24, Lixia Zhang wrote:
On Jan 8, 2011, at 7:46 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
08.01.2011 17:37, Lixia Zhang wrote:
I am not sure why this rush to get a new internet draft out, without
consultation to any of its original authors, and given the rough
consensus on ietf mailing list discussion is to keep NETBLT RFC as
is (experimental).
First of all, I've consulted the initial author of it, John White,
and some other people off-list.
With all the respect to John, he is not among the original authors of
NETBLT RFC.
I thought you meant the draft. How can we contact them if we do not
have any point of contact in the RFC?
Wonder if you can tell me who are the other people that you contacted?
Why are you so interested in it? What benefit would you have if you get
known that?
The NETBLT spec found in RFC998 *as is* could not be appropriate for
current Internet,
It was not meant to. It's for discussion and comment.
And what you cited is a comment.
As I already quoted this in my earlier msg: RFC998 stated clearly that
This document is published for discussion and comment, and does not
constitute a standard. The proposal may change and certain parts of
the protocol have not yet been specified; implementation of this
document is therefore not advised.
so there is a need for another one. In the next 3 months, I think,
we will be a work on it. Moreover, we plan to submit it as
Independent Submission as Experimental RFC, despites it mentions the
Standards Track one.
Mykyta
I am confused here:
in your message posted on Jan 7 (2 days ago),
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg65041.html
you said
As for NETBLT, I am strongly against moving it to Historic, rather
than specifying by Standards Track Document. There has been one
attempt to do that by John White in 1995 (see
draft-white-protocol-stack), but IMO (that likes strange, but...)
we can align this document with the most current needs of Internet
and publish.
Mykyta
but now you changed your mind?
Not, I have not. If that was, I wouldn't publish the
draft-white-tsvwg-netblt. I desired to move the IRTP to Historic only
rather that other protocols I mentioned.
Lixia
Lixia
On Jan 8, 2011, at 3:00 AM, Internet-Drafts(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
<mailto:Internet-Drafts(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title : Network Block Transfer Protocol (NETBLT)
Author(s) : J. White, M. Yevstifeyev
Filename : draft-white-tsvwg-netblt-00.txt
Pages : 34
Date : 2011-01-08
This document is a specification of version 5 of Network Block
Transfer Protocol (NETBLT). This protocol was firstly specified in
RFC 969, that has been made obsolete by RFC 998. Nevertheless, none
of these documents match current Internet Standards and are
deprecated. This document aligns the NETBLT specification with the
most current Internet Standards and obsoletes RFC 998.
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-white-tsvwg-netblt-00.txt
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
<Mail Attachment>_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
I-D-Announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto:I-D-Announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto:Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto:Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf