Re: "Deprecate"

---- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>
To: "'Michelle Cotton'" <michelle(_dot_)cotton(_at_)icann(_dot_)org>; 
"'Dearlove,
Christopher (UK)'" <chris(_dot_)dearlove(_at_)baesystems(_dot_)com>; "'t.p.'"
<daedulus(_at_)btconnect(_dot_)com>; "'ietf'" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:13 PM
Subject: RE: "Deprecate"


> That would be great.
>
> Should 4020bis have a gating normative reference on 5226bis?
Tricky;  it would mean we are approving 4020bis without knowing what it
means, until 5226bis is approved.

Tom Petch


> Adrian
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
> > [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf
Of
> > Michelle Cotton
> > Sent: 29 August 2013 15:53
> > To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); t.p.; ietf
> > Subject: Re: "Deprecate"
> >
> > We are working on 5226bis right now and have a plans to discuss the
term
> > in there.
> >
> > --Michelle Cotton
> >
> > Michelle Cotton
> > Manager, IANA Services
> > ICANN
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8/29/13 5:22 AM, "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)"
> > <chris(_dot_)dearlove(_at_)baesystems(_dot_)com> wrote:
> >
> > > It's definitely an ISO term, I see it used for features of C++.
> > >
> > > There's then discussion even there of what it means. It is, I
think,
> > > meant to be used for "we don't think you should use this, there's
> > > something better, and this is a warning that it may get removed in
a
> > > future version". In the case of computer languages there is an
additional
> > > possibility of "your compiler may emit a warning if you persist in
using
> > > it".
> > >
> > > But the only major feature (export) removed in the last C++ version
went
> > > straight from "part of the standard, but only one compiler ever
> > > implemented it, and thus found out it was a bad realisation of an
idea"
> > > to removed, with no intermediate deprecated stage. And other
features
> > > just hang around deprecated. So it really doesn't guarantee
anything in
> > > that instance, neither than if deprecated will go, not if not
deprecated
> > > won't go.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Christopher Dearlove
> > > Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
> > > Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
> > > BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
> > > West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
> > > Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
> > > chris(_dot_)dearlove(_at_)baesystems(_dot_)com | http://www.baesystems.com
> > >
> > > BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
> > > Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace
> > > Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
> > > Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
> > > [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of
> > > t.p.
> > > Sent: 29 August 2013 12:56
> > > To: ietf
> > > Subject: "Deprecate"
> > >
> > > ----------------------! WARNING ! ----------------------
> > > This message originates from outside our organisation,
> > > either from an external partner or from the internet.
> > > Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> > > Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
> > > for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > I recently saw 'deprecate' used in an IANA Considerations and
turned to
> > > "IANA Considerations" [RFC5226] to see how it was defined only to
find
> > > no mention of it there.  I am used to the term from SMI, as quoted
> > > below, but that seems not quite right, in that a deprecated IANA
entry
> > > never disappears, as in
> > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-
> > number
> > > s-5
> > >
> > > Are there other, perhaps better definitions of the term
'deprecated' in
> > > use outside SMI (and yes, I know about praying nuns!)?
> > >
> > > Tom Petch
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
> > > To: "IPv6 Maintanence" <ipv6(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
> > > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 3:32 PM
> > > Subject: "Deprecate"
> > >
> > >
> > > > At the mike a moment ago, I referred to an existing formal
definition
> > > of "deprecate". For the record, the reference is to RFC 1158, which
> > > reads:
> > > > 3.1.  Deprecated Objects
> > > >
> > > >    In order to better prepare implementors for future changes in
the
> > > >    MIB, a new term "deprecated" may be used when describing an
object.
> > > >    A deprecated object in the MIB is one which must be supported,
but
> > > >    one which will most likely be removed from the next version of
the
> > > >    MIB (e.g., MIB-III).
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > > > ipv6(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > > > Administrative Requests:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *************************************************************
> > *******
> > > This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> > > recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> > > recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> > > You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> > > distribute its contents to any other person.
> > > *************************************************************
> > *******
> > >