From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 12 07:00:28 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ElmLz-0002ku-V8; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 07:00:27 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ElmLx-0002je-Kv for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 07:00:26 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA11283 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 06:59:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-red.research.att.com ([192.20.225.110] helo=mail-white.research.att.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ElmMa-0000jj-EU for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 07:01:04 -0500 Received: from mango.attlabs.att.com (mango.attlabs.att.com [135.197.128.36]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C76F4147B30 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 07:00:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from mango.attlabs.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mango.attlabs.att.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id jBCC023h069923 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 04:00:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fenner@research.att.com) Received: (from fenner@localhost) by mango.attlabs.att.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id jBCC01fX069922 for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 04:00:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fenner) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 04:00:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200512121200.jBCC01fX069922@mango.attlabs.att.com> From: fenner@research.att.com (Bill Fenner) To: rtg-dir@ietf.org (Routing Area Directorate) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 32a65c0bf5eb4ec26489239c7cdd0636 Subject: IESG agenda for 2005-12-15 telechat. X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org IESG Agenda Good approximation of what will be included in the Agenda of next Telechat (2005-12-15). Updated 2:2:30 EDT, December 12, 2005 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Administrivia 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Bash the Agenda 1.3 Approval of the Minutes of the past telechat 1.4 List of Remaining Action Items from Last Telechat 1.5 Review of Projects 2. Protocol Actions Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable basis on which to build the salient part of the Internet infrastructure? If not, what changes would make it so?" 2.1 WG Submissions 2.1.1 New Item Area Date SEC Dec 8 Kerberized Internet Negotiation of Keys (KINK) (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 9 draft-ietf-kink-kink-11.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: A draft 11 has been submitted to address last call comments. Back to IESG to clear discusses and pick up positive ballots. It's been a long time since this was here (early 2003) and the document has changed significantly. A full re-review is probably in order. Token: Sam Hartman INT Structure-Agnostic TDM over Packet (SAToP) (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 9 draft-ietf-pwe3-satop-03.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Mark Townsley SEC Bootstrapping TESLA (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 9 draft-ietf-msec-bootstrapping-tesla-02.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Russ Housley OPS RADIUS Extension for Digest Authentication (Proposed Standard) - 4 of 9 draft-ietf-radext-digest-auth-06.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Note: Bernard Aboba is the proto shepherd Token: David Kessens TSV IANA Registration for Enumservice Voice (Proposed Standard) - 5 of 9 draft-ietf-enum-voice-01.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Allison Mankin RTP Payload Format for Uncompressed Video: TSV Additional Colour Sampling Modes (Proposed Standard) - 6 of 9 draft-ietf-avt-uncomp-video-ext-01.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: PROTO shepherd: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com Token: Allison Mankin APP A Data Model for Presence (Proposed Standard) - 7 of 9 draft-ietf-simple-presence-data-model-06.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Much of the language here reflects long discussion and compromise. Please recognize that when suggesting wordsmithing changes. Token: Ted Hardie INT Two-Document ballot: - 8 of 9 Minimally Covering NSEC Records and DNSSEC On-line Signing (Proposed Standard) - 8 of 9 draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-online-signing-00.txt Derivation of DNS Name Predecessor and Successor (Experimental) draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-name-p-s-01.txt Note: Goes with draft-ietf-dnsext-online-signing. This is an example of a specific algorithm for online signing. Token: Margaret Wasserman Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Payload TSV Format for the Variable-Rate Multimode Wideband (VMR-WB) Extension Audio Codec (Proposed Standard) - 9 of 9 draft-ietf-avt-rtp-vmr-wb-extension-02.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Last Call finishes 12/16; update of existing media type. PROTO shepherd Colin Perkins csp@csperkins.org Note that the authors/WG viewed as a media type used beyond 3GPP2 which is why they set up the IETF process rather than the process with minimal IETF involvement Token: Allison Mankin 2.1.2 Returning Item Area Date Encapsulation Methods for Transport of INT Ethernet Over MPLS Networks (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2 draft-ietf-pwe3-ethernet-encap-11.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Document was updated, back on agenda to discuss whether DISCUSS items are satisfactory addressed. Token: Mark Townsley Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address INT Autoconfiguration in IPv6 (Draft Standard) - 2 of 2 draft-ietf-ipv6-privacy-addrs-v2-04.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Margaret Wasserman 2.2 Individual Submissions 2.2.1 New Item NONE 2.2.2 Returning Item Area Date Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) key exchange for SEC the Secure Shell (SSH) Transport Layer Protocol (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 1 draft-harris-ssh-rsa-kex-05.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Sam Hartman 3. Document Actions 3.1 WG Submissions Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it covers? If not, what changes would make it so?" 3.1.1 New Item Area Date OPS IPv6 Neighbor Discovery On-Link Assumption Considered Harmful (Informational) - 1 of 7 draft-ietf-v6ops-onlinkassumption-03.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Fred Baker is the proto shepherd Token: David Kessens A Framework for Supporting Emergency TSV Telecommunications Services (ETS) Within a Single Administrative Domain (Informational) - 2 of 7 draft-ietf-ieprep-domain-frame-05.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Jon Peterson Getting rid of the cruft: an experiment to GEN identify obsolete standards document (Informational) - 3 of 7 draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment-02.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Brian Carpenter Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning APP (WebDAV) Redirect Reference Resources (Experimental) - 4 of 7 draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-13.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Ted Hardie OPS Use of VLANs for IPv4-IPv6 Coexistence in Enterprise Networks (Informational) - 5 of 7 draft-ietf-v6ops-vlan-usage-00.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: Fred Baker is the proto shepherd Token: David Kessens TSV Two-Document ballot: [Open Web Ballot] - 6 of 7 SigComp Torture Tests (Informational) - 6 of 7 draft-ietf-rohc-sigcomp-torture-tests-03.txt Note: PROTO shepherd lars-erik.jonsson@ericsson.com SigComp Users' Guide (Informational) draft-ietf-rohc-sigcomp-user-guide-04.txt Note: Both docs' References are re-labelled Normative and 2026, 3978-3879 removed by RFCEDNotes PROTO shepherd lars-erik.jonsson@ericsson.com Token: Allison Mankin Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) TSV Specification Errata and Issues (Informational) - 7 of 7 draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpimpguide-16.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: See writeup for brief explanation about why Info, and text for more - was LC'd for PS in case. PROTO shepherd James Polk jmpolk@cisco.com Token: Allison Mankin 3.1.2 Returning Item Area Date OPS Operational Considerations and Issues with IPv6 DNS (Informational) - 1 of 1 draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-12.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: To check (for the third time) on the status of the resolution of Thomas Narten/ Margaret Wasserman's DISCUSS. Token: David Kessens 3.2 Individual Submissions Via AD Reviews should focus on these questions: "Is this document a reasonable contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it covers? If not, what changes would make it so?" 3.2.1 New Item Area Date INT The DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) DNS Resource Record (Informational) - 1 of 1 draft-andrews-dlv-dns-rr-00.txt Note: Individual submission for DLV typecode. Token: Margaret Wasserman 3.2.2 Returning Item NONE 3.3 Individual Submissions Via RFC Editor The IESG will use RFC 3932 responses: 1) The IESG has not found any conflict between this document and IETF work; 2) The IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG , but this does not prevent publishing; 3) The IESG thinks that publication is harmful to work in WG and recommends not publishing at this time; 4) The IESG thinks that this document violates the IETF procedures for and should therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG approval; 5) The IESG thinks that this document extends an IETF protocol in a way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be published without IETF review and IESG approval. Other matters may be recorded in comments to be passed on to the RFC Editor as community review of the document. 3.3.1 New Item Area Date APP Kerberos based HTTP Authentication in Windows (Informational) - 1 of 2 draft-jaganathan-kerberos-http-01.txt [Open Web Ballot] Note: RFC-Editor submission. Token: Scott Hollenbeck SEC A Description of the Rabbit Stream Cipher Algorithm (Informational) - 2 of 2 draft-zenner-rabbit-02.txt [Open Web Ballot] Token: Russ Housley 3.3.2 Returning Item Area Date INT DISCOVER: Supporting Multicast DNS Queries (Experimental) - 1 of 1 draft-manning-opcode-discover-02.txt Note: Proposing DNP note to the RFC editor because IETF standards action is required for DNS opcode allocation. See ballot write-up for details. Token: Margaret Wasserman 4. Working Group Actions 4.1 WG Creation 4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review Area Date SEC Dec 8 Domain Keys Identified Mail (dkim) - 1 of 3 Token: Russ SEC Dec 8 EAP Method Update (emu) - 2 of 3 Token: Sam OPS Dec 8 Diameter Maintanence and Extentions (dime) - 3 of 3 Token: David 4.1.2 Proposed for Approval NONE 4.2 WG Rechartering 4.2.1 Under evaluation for IETF Review Area Date INT Dec 8 Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge to Edge (pwe3) - 1 of 2 Token: Mark SEC Dec 8 Extended Incident Handling (inch) - 2 of 2 Token: Sam 4.2.2 Proposed for Approval Area Date INT Oct 5 Mobility for IPv4 (mip4) - 1 of 1 Token: Margaret 5. IAB News We Can Use 6. Management Issues 7. Working Group News From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 19 18:55:46 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EoUr4-00081I-N7; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:55:46 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EoUr2-0007xG-G0 for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:55:44 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08288 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:54:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EoUtK-0004Ad-JQ for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:58:07 -0500 Received: from [147.28.0.62] (helo=usmovnazinin.alcatel.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1EoUqx-000Mtx-PQ; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:55:39 +0000 Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:55:26 -0800 From: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <398674663.20051219155526@psg.com> To: Acee Lindem , Rohit Dube , Rohit Dube MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org Subject: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alex Zinin List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Acee, Rohit, RTG-DIR members: In case you didn't see this doc: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment-02.txt I'm holding a DISCUSS on this. The doc suggests to retire MOSPF and a bunch of other specs to Historic. I need to know your opinion on this. Here's what I have on my list of questionable retirements: > RFC1378 (The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)) > RFC1469 (IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks) > RFC1582 (Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits) > RFC1584 (Multicast Extensions to OSPF) > RFC1598 (PPP in X.25) > RFC1755 (ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM) I'd like to hear opinions on this. -- Alex http://www.psg.com/~zinin From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 19 19:10:31 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EoV5L-0002fX-Qy; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:10:31 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EoV5K-0002fS-RP for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:10:30 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09962 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:09:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from dyn50.sunlabs.com ([204.153.12.50] helo=mail-mta.sunlabs.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EoV7X-0004dy-0L for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:12:52 -0500 Received: from mail.sunlabs.com ([152.70.2.186]) by dps.sfvic.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IRR0074BSGP5600@dps.sfvic.sunlabs.com> for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:10:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from sun.com ([129.150.24.250]) by mail.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTPSA id <0IRR005CPSGKAX30@mail.sunlabs.com> for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:09:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:09:58 -0800 From: Radia Perlman In-reply-to: <398674663.20051219155526@psg.com> To: Alex Zinin Message-id: <43A74BD6.1070801@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en References: <398674663.20051219155526@psg.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031008 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, Acee Lindem , Rohit Dube Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Seems reasonable. What's the downside of doing this? Radia Alex Zinin wrote: >Acee, Rohit, RTG-DIR members: > > In case you didn't see this doc: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment-02.txt > > I'm holding a DISCUSS on this. The doc suggests to retire MOSPF and a > bunch of other specs to Historic. I need to know your opinion on this. > > Here's what I have on my list of questionable retirements: > > > >> RFC1378 (The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)) >> RFC1469 (IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks) >> RFC1582 (Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits) >> RFC1584 (Multicast Extensions to OSPF) >> RFC1598 (PPP in X.25) >> RFC1755 (ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM) >> >> > > I'd like to hear opinions on this. > > > From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 20 02:36:35 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eoc31-0002cc-PN; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:36:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eoc30-0002cR-8C for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:36:34 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA22638 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:35:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from dyn50.sunlabs.com ([204.153.12.50] helo=mail-mta.sunlabs.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Eoc5G-0001I9-U8 for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:39:01 -0500 Received: from mail.sunlabs.com ([152.70.2.186]) by dps.sfvic.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IRS007DFD495600@dps.sfvic.sunlabs.com> for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:36:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from sun.com ([129.150.24.250]) by mail.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTPSA id <0IRS005I2D46B730@mail.sunlabs.com> for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:36:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:36:08 -0800 From: Radia Perlman In-reply-to: <6F44D7F6B24A8F4DA0AB46C9BE924F020295C0C1@VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> To: Susan Hares Message-id: <43A7B468.4040905@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en References: <6F44D7F6B24A8F4DA0AB46C9BE924F020295C0C1@VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031008 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 10ba05e7e8a9aa6adb025f426bef3a30 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: Alex Zinin , rtg-dir@ietf.org, Acee Lindem , Rohit Dube Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Suppose someone does want to use MOSPF, etc. Moving them to historic doesn't seem to prevent anyone from implementing them. The only way I could imagine it would make any difference is if IPR statements are based on the thing being standard, and if IETF de-standardized something, then it would no longer be royalty free. Radia Susan Hares wrote: >Alex: > >I think there are some environments where MOSPF might be useful. >How do we want to judge this? > >sue > >-----Original Message----- >From: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On >Behalf Of Radia Perlman >Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 7:10 PM >To: Alex Zinin >Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; Acee Lindem; Rohit Dube >Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? > >Seems reasonable. What's the downside of doing this? > >Radia > > > >Alex Zinin wrote: > > > >>Acee, Rohit, RTG-DIR members: >> >> In case you didn't see this doc: >> >> >> >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment >-02.txt > > >> I'm holding a DISCUSS on this. The doc suggests to retire MOSPF and a >> bunch of other specs to Historic. I need to know your opinion on >> >> >this. > > >> Here's what I have on my list of questionable retirements: >> >> >> >> >> >>> RFC1378 (The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)) >>> RFC1469 (IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks) >>> RFC1582 (Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits) >>> RFC1584 (Multicast Extensions to OSPF) >>> RFC1598 (PPP in X.25) >>> RFC1755 (ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM) >>> >>> >>> >>> >> I'd like to hear opinions on this. >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 20 11:54:00 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EokkS-0006dU-DS; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:54:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EokkQ-0006cV-PY for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:53:59 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29022 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:52:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Eokms-0004cZ-4W for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:56:31 -0500 Received: from [147.28.0.62] (helo=usmovnazinin.alcatel.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1EokkJ-000BP2-0F; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:53:51 +0000 Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:53:39 -0800 From: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1565041178.20051220085339@psg.com> To: Radia Perlman In-Reply-To: <43A74BD6.1070801@sun.com> References: <398674663.20051219155526@psg.com> <43A74BD6.1070801@sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, Acee Lindem , Rohit Dube Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alex Zinin List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Radia, The biggest implication of moving to historic would be that "there's no more IETF Standard on the topic", and the message that the IETF admits that a spec is obsolete. This, in fact, may be the right message to send, but I wanted to make sure we've discussed this. Thanks. -- Alex http://www.psg.com/~zinin Monday, December 19, 2005, 4:09:58 PM, Radia Perlman wrote: > Seems reasonable. What's the downside of doing this? > Radia > Alex Zinin wrote: >>Acee, Rohit, RTG-DIR members: >> >> In case you didn't see this doc: >> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment-02.txt >> >> I'm holding a DISCUSS on this. The doc suggests to retire MOSPF and a >> bunch of other specs to Historic. I need to know your opinion on this. >> >> Here's what I have on my list of questionable retirements: >> >> >> >>> RFC1378 (The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)) >>> RFC1469 (IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks) >>> RFC1582 (Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits) >>> RFC1584 (Multicast Extensions to OSPF) >>> RFC1598 (PPP in X.25) >>> RFC1755 (ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM) >>> >>> >> >> I'd like to hear opinions on this. >> >> >> From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 20 11:54:39 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eokl5-0006tO-Qu; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:54:39 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eokl4-0006s7-4j for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:54:38 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29102 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:53:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EoknV-0004f2-CC for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:57:10 -0500 Received: from [147.28.0.62] (helo=usmovnazinin.alcatel.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Eokl1-000ChB-Hm; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:54:35 +0000 Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:54:24 -0800 From: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1872967753.20051220085424@psg.com> To: Rohit Dube In-Reply-To: <20051220034241.89583.qmail@web50701.mail.yahoo.com> References: <398674663.20051219155526@psg.com> <20051220034241.89583.qmail@web50701.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 5a9a1bd6c2d06a21d748b7d0070ddcb8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, Acee Lindem Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alex Zinin List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Thanks, Rohit! That's what I would expect too, yet I wanted you guys to be in the loop. -- Alex http://www.psg.com/~zinin Monday, December 19, 2005, 7:42:41 PM, Rohit Dube wrote: > Hey Alex, > I will discuss with Acee soon, but there is no ongoing MOSPF > work. In late 2002, we had removed MOSPF work-items from the > working groups work-item list and we had announced the removal > of the same in the Nov/Dec-2002 WG meeting. While I am sure > that there are some MOSPF networks out there, I am also sure > that permanently putting a stop to MOSPF work (if that is > what historic implies) would surprise or effect very few > people. > Best, > --rohit. > --- Alex Zinin wrote: >> Acee, Rohit, RTG-DIR members: >> >> In case you didn't see this doc: >> >> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment-02.txt >> >> I'm holding a DISCUSS on this. The doc suggests to retire MOSPF and a >> bunch of other specs to Historic. I need to know your opinion on this. >> >> Here's what I have on my list of questionable retirements: >> >> > RFC1378 (The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)) >> > RFC1469 (IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks) >> > RFC1582 (Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits) >> > RFC1584 (Multicast Extensions to OSPF) >> > RFC1598 (PPP in X.25) >> > RFC1755 (ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM) >> >> I'd like to hear opinions on this. >> >> -- >> Alex >> http://www.psg.com/~zinin >> >> > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 20 11:56:32 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eokmu-0007tq-22; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:56:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eokms-0007tl-MS for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:56:31 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29505 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:55:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EokpL-0004ll-3X for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:59:03 -0500 Received: from [147.28.0.62] (helo=usmovnazinin.alcatel.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Eokmq-000G2U-D0; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:56:28 +0000 Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:56:17 -0800 From: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1242658198.20051220085617@psg.com> To: "Susan Hares" In-Reply-To: <6F44D7F6B24A8F4DA0AB46C9BE924F020295C37C@VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> References: <6F44D7F6B24A8F4DA0AB46C9BE924F020295C37C@VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b2809b6f39decc6de467dcf252f42af1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, Radia Perlman , Acee Lindem , Rohit Dube Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alex Zinin List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Sue- The discussion forum would be the newtrk WG (you should probably also cc the routing-discussion mailing list). Regarding reconsidering this work: if we really want to do it now, then we should remove MOSPF from the retirement list. Otherwise, we my as well put it to Historic and revisit it when people actually want to do something. -- Alex http://www.psg.com/~zinin Tuesday, December 20, 2005, 8:27:06 AM, Susan Hares wrote: > Radia: > I guess I'm arguing that work needs to be reconsidered. > I think applications/revisions of MOSPF may prove more useful in > today's internet. > So, is there a DISCUSS group for this? > Sue > -----Original Message----- > From: Radia Perlman [mailto:Radia.Perlman@sun.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 2:36 AM > To: Susan Hares > Cc: Alex Zinin; rtg-dir@ietf.org; Acee Lindem; Rohit Dube > Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? > Suppose someone does want to use MOSPF, etc. Moving them to historic > doesn't seem > to prevent anyone from implementing them. > The only way I could imagine it would make any difference is if IPR > statements are based on > the thing being standard, and if IETF de-standardized something, then it > would no longer > be royalty free. > Radia > Susan Hares wrote: >>Alex: >> >>I think there are some environments where MOSPF might be useful. >>How do we want to judge this? >> >>sue >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On >>Behalf Of Radia Perlman >>Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 7:10 PM >>To: Alex Zinin >>Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; Acee Lindem; Rohit Dube >>Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? >> >>Seems reasonable. What's the downside of doing this? >> >>Radia >> >> >> >>Alex Zinin wrote: >> >> >> >>>Acee, Rohit, RTG-DIR members: >>> >>> In case you didn't see this doc: >>> >>> >>> >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experimen > t >>-02.txt >> >> >>> I'm holding a DISCUSS on this. The doc suggests to retire MOSPF and a >>> bunch of other specs to Historic. I need to know your opinion on >>> >>> >>this. >> >> >>> Here's what I have on my list of questionable retirements: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> RFC1378 (The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)) >>>> RFC1469 (IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks) >>>> RFC1582 (Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits) >>>> RFC1584 (Multicast Extensions to OSPF) >>>> RFC1598 (PPP in X.25) >>>> RFC1755 (ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> I'd like to hear opinions on this. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 20 13:25:53 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EomBN-0005KI-BU; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:25:53 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EomBL-0005Iw-7u for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:25:52 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA13514 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:24:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EomDn-0008Rr-5v for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:28:24 -0500 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Dec 2005 10:25:40 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.99,274,1131350400"; d="scan'208"; a="381175302:sNHT34678092" Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id jBKIPWQM001516; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:25:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:25:19 -0500 Received: from [10.82.241.47] ([10.82.241.47]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:25:19 -0500 Message-ID: <43A84C8E.4050609@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:25:18 -0500 From: Acee Lindem User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Zinin References: <398674663.20051219155526@psg.com> <20051220034241.89583.qmail@web50701.mail.yahoo.com> <1872967753.20051220085424@psg.com> In-Reply-To: <1872967753.20051220085424@psg.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Dec 2005 18:25:19.0190 (UTC) FILETIME=[BB458F60:01C60592] X-Spam-Score: 2.2 (++) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, Rohit Dube Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Alex Zinin wrote: >Thanks, Rohit! That's what I would expect too, yet I wanted you >guys to be in the loop. > > On a related note, I'm wondering whether I should deprecate or remove the MOSPF specific details from the OSPFv3 update (aks, RFC 2740 respin). I probably can't just remove them but I could deprecate the defined bits and IGMP LSA encoding. I don't know of any MOSPFv3 implementation on the planet. Thoughts? Acee From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 20 13:32:59 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EomIF-0007hX-3v; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:32:59 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EomIA-0007hD-Tv for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:32:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14847 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:31:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EomKd-0000KS-3j for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:35:28 -0500 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Dec 2005 10:32:44 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.99,274,1131350400"; d="scan'208"; a="381179992:sNHT34260992" Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id jBKIWfQs014521; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:32:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:32:43 -0500 Received: from [10.82.241.47] ([10.82.241.47]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:32:42 -0500 Message-ID: <43A84E4A.9000207@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:32:42 -0500 From: Acee Lindem User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Susan Hares References: <6F44D7F6B24A8F4DA0AB46C9BE924F020295C37C@VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> In-Reply-To: <6F44D7F6B24A8F4DA0AB46C9BE924F020295C37C@VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Dec 2005 18:32:42.0926 (UTC) FILETIME=[C3C24CE0:01C60593] X-Spam-Score: 2.2 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 789c141a303c09204b537a4078e2a63f Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alex Zinin , rtg-dir@ietf.org, Radia Perlman , Rohit Dube Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Susan Hares wrote: >Radia: > >I guess I'm arguing that work needs to be reconsidered. >I think applications/revisions of MOSPF may prove more useful in >today's internet. > > >So, is there a DISCUSS group for this? > > Would it be inappropriate to discuss this here (rtg-dir)? We've had no interest in MOSPF since PIM won over CBT as the preferred multicast routing protocol. I'd be interested in what applications/revisions are envisioned? Thanks, Acee >Sue > >-----Original Message----- >From: Radia Perlman [mailto:Radia.Perlman@sun.com] >Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 2:36 AM >To: Susan Hares >Cc: Alex Zinin; rtg-dir@ietf.org; Acee Lindem; Rohit Dube >Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? > >Suppose someone does want to use MOSPF, etc. Moving them to historic >doesn't seem >to prevent anyone from implementing them. > >The only way I could imagine it would make any difference is if IPR >statements are based on >the thing being standard, and if IETF de-standardized something, then it > >would no longer >be royalty free. > >Radia > > > >Susan Hares wrote: > > > >>Alex: >> >>I think there are some environments where MOSPF might be useful. >>How do we want to judge this? >> >>sue >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On >>Behalf Of Radia Perlman >>Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 7:10 PM >>To: Alex Zinin >>Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; Acee Lindem; Rohit Dube >>Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? >> >>Seems reasonable. What's the downside of doing this? >> >>Radia >> >> >> >>Alex Zinin wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>Acee, Rohit, RTG-DIR members: >>> >>>In case you didn't see this doc: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experimen >> >> >t > > >>-02.txt >> >> >> >> >>>I'm holding a DISCUSS on this. The doc suggests to retire MOSPF and a >>>bunch of other specs to Historic. I need to know your opinion on >>> >>> >>> >>> >>this. >> >> >> >> >>>Here's what I have on my list of questionable retirements: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> RFC1378 (The PPP AppleTalk Control Protocol (ATCP)) >>>> RFC1469 (IP Multicast over Token-Ring Local Area Networks) >>>> RFC1582 (Extensions to RIP to Support Demand Circuits) >>>> RFC1584 (Multicast Extensions to OSPF) >>>> RFC1598 (PPP in X.25) >>>> RFC1755 (ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>I'd like to hear opinions on this. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 20 13:57:22 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eomfq-000624-Gl; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:57:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eomfp-00061w-JU for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:57:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18843 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:56:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from dyn50.sunlabs.com ([204.153.12.50] helo=mail-mta.sunlabs.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EomiB-0001Eu-14 for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:59:52 -0500 Received: from mail.sunlabs.com ([152.70.2.186]) by dps.sfvic.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IRT007ZF8MT5600@dps.sfvic.sunlabs.com> for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:56:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from sun.com ([129.150.24.250]) by mail.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTPSA id <0IRT005OA8MSAY30@mail.sunlabs.com> for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:56:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:56:54 -0800 From: Radia Perlman In-reply-to: <43A84E4A.9000207@cisco.com> To: Acee Lindem Message-id: <43A853F6.5000705@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en References: <6F44D7F6B24A8F4DA0AB46C9BE924F020295C37C@VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> <43A84E4A.9000207@cisco.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031008 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: Susan Hares , Alex Zinin , Rohit Dube , rtg-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Not that it matters for this discussion, but what does "PIM vs CBT" have to do with MOSPF? Perhaps you meant something like "PIM was declared the only multicast routing protocol, so all others, including MOSPF, CBT, DVMRP should be deprecated"? Radia Acee Lindem wrote: > >> > Would it be inappropriate to discuss this here (rtg-dir)? We've had no > interest > in MOSPF since PIM won over CBT as the preferred multicast routing > protocol. > I'd be interested in what applications/revisions are envisioned? > > Thanks, > Acee > >> From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 20 14:22:58 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eon4c-00057P-4C; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:22:58 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eon4Z-00057G-OQ for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:22:56 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22030 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:21:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Eon72-00027t-8c for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:25:29 -0500 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Dec 2005 11:22:46 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.99,274,1131350400"; d="scan'208"; a="686663565:sNHT33046620" Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id jBKJLx7U020991; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:22:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:22:41 -0500 Received: from [10.82.241.47] ([10.82.241.47]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:22:41 -0500 Message-ID: <43A85A00.1000507@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:22:40 -0500 From: Acee Lindem User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Radia Perlman References: <6F44D7F6B24A8F4DA0AB46C9BE924F020295C37C@VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> <43A84E4A.9000207@cisco.com> <43A853F6.5000705@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <43A853F6.5000705@sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Dec 2005 19:22:41.0540 (UTC) FILETIME=[BF127C40:01C6059A] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Susan Hares , Alex Zinin , Rohit Dube , rtg-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Radia Perlman wrote: > Not that it matters for this discussion, but what does "PIM vs CBT" > have to do with MOSPF? > Perhaps you meant something like "PIM was declared the only multicast > routing protocol, so > all others, including MOSPF, CBT, DVMRP should be deprecated"? Nope - that's not what I meant. What I meant was that there used to be some fleeting interest in MOSPF and those arguing that it is technical superior to other multicast routing protocols. Since PIM has been universally accepted as the preferred multicast routing protocol, there has been no IETF activity and, to the best of my knowledge, no new implementations. I would also venture to say that the exant implementations are falling into disuse. Hence, I don't having a problem with it being reclassified as historic. A related issue is whether or not the MOSPF bits and code points in OSPFv3 should be deprecated since I know of no MOSPFv3 implementations. Acee > > > Radia > > Acee Lindem wrote: > >> >>> >> Would it be inappropriate to discuss this here (rtg-dir)? We've had >> no interest >> in MOSPF since PIM won over CBT as the preferred multicast routing >> protocol. >> I'd be interested in what applications/revisions are envisioned? >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >>> > From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 20 18:39:00 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eor4O-0007ZH-Jg; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:39:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eor4N-0007Z3-7Q for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:38:59 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA18619 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:37:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Eor6q-0003iJ-5K for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:41:35 -0500 Received: from [147.28.0.62] (helo=usmovnazinin.alcatel.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Eor4H-0003XX-Ju; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:38:53 +0000 Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:38:43 -0800 From: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <2310204077.20051220153843@psg.com> To: Acee Lindem In-Reply-To: <43A85A00.1000507@cisco.com> References: <6F44D7F6B24A8F4DA0AB46C9BE924F020295C37C@VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> <43A84E4A.9000207@cisco.com> <43A853F6.5000705@sun.com> <43A85A00.1000507@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Susan Hares , rtg-dir@ietf.org, Radia Perlman , Rohit Dube Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alex Zinin List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org OK, it appears that there is an agreement, at least on this list, that moving MOSPF to Historic is the right thing. Given that there's lack of interest in this area whatsoever, it seems to me we don't need to LC this decision in the OSPF WG, but if Acee and Rohit think it would be useful, we can do so. Regarding deprecating MOSPF stuff in the OSPFv3 update. We should do that, and in fact have to, since unimplemented features can't stay as a spec progresses along the STD track. -- Alex http://www.psg.com/~zinin Tuesday, December 20, 2005, 11:22:40 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: > Radia Perlman wrote: >> Not that it matters for this discussion, but what does "PIM vs CBT" >> have to do with MOSPF? >> Perhaps you meant something like "PIM was declared the only multicast >> routing protocol, so >> all others, including MOSPF, CBT, DVMRP should be deprecated"? > Nope - that's not what I meant. What I meant was that there used to be > some fleeting interest > in MOSPF and those arguing that it is technical superior to other > multicast routing protocols. Since PIM > has been universally accepted as the preferred multicast routing > protocol, there has been no IETF activity > and, to the best of my knowledge, no new implementations. I would also > venture to say that the exant > implementations are falling into disuse. Hence, I don't having a problem > with it being reclassified as > historic. A related issue is whether or not the MOSPF bits and code > points in OSPFv3 should be > deprecated since I know of no MOSPFv3 implementations. > Acee >> >> >> Radia >> >> Acee Lindem wrote: >> >>> >>>> >>> Would it be inappropriate to discuss this here (rtg-dir)? We've had >>> no interest >>> in MOSPF since PIM won over CBT as the preferred multicast routing >>> protocol. >>> I'd be interested in what applications/revisions are envisioned? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>> >>>> >> From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 20 18:47:01 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EorC9-00047E-Tm; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:47:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EorC7-00043t-Kk for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:46:59 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA19326 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:45:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EorEd-0003vZ-Jr for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:49:35 -0500 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Dec 2005 15:46:50 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.99,276,1131350400"; d="scan'208"; a="381336871:sNHT37183508" Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id jBKNje7U002344; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:46:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:46:35 -0500 Received: from [10.82.241.47] ([10.82.241.47]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:46:34 -0500 Message-ID: <43A897DA.3050106@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:46:34 -0500 From: Acee Lindem User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Zinin References: <6F44D7F6B24A8F4DA0AB46C9BE924F020295C37C@VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> <43A84E4A.9000207@cisco.com> <43A853F6.5000705@sun.com> <43A85A00.1000507@cisco.com> <2310204077.20051220153843@psg.com> In-Reply-To: <2310204077.20051220153843@psg.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Dec 2005 23:46:34.0967 (UTC) FILETIME=[9C87B670:01C605BF] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Susan Hares , rtg-dir@ietf.org, Radia Perlman , Rohit Dube Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Alex Zinin wrote: >OK, it appears that there is an agreement, at least on this list, that >moving MOSPF to Historic is the right thing. Given that there's lack of >interest in this area whatsoever, it seems to me we don't need to LC this >decision in the OSPF WG, but if Acee and Rohit think it would be useful, we >can do so. > > I'll make an announcement, just so it doesn't surprise anyone. >Regarding deprecating MOSPF stuff in the OSPFv3 update. We should do that, >and in fact have to, since unimplemented features can't stay as a spec >progresses along the STD track. > > Right - What is the correct handling of the MOSPF specific bits and LSA function code? Should I leave them as assigned (and indicate they are deprecated) or should I just remove them completely? My assumption is the former but I want to make sure. Thanks, Acee From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 20 18:56:41 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EorLV-0006Yv-Oe; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:56:41 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EorLR-0006Xx-UA for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:56:40 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20312 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:55:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EorNx-0004C6-1Z for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:59:14 -0500 Received: from [147.28.0.62] (helo=usmovnazinin.alcatel.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1EorLO-0004Vd-PX; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:56:34 +0000 Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:56:24 -0800 From: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <431823540.20051220155624@psg.com> To: Alex Zinin In-Reply-To: <2310204077.20051220153843@psg.com> References: <6F44D7F6B24A8F4DA0AB46C9BE924F020295C37C@VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> <43A84E4A.9000207@cisco.com> <43A853F6.5000705@sun.com> <43A85A00.1000507@cisco.com> <2310204077.20051220153843@psg.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Susan Hares , rtg-dir@ietf.org, Radia Perlman , Acee Lindem , Rohit Dube Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alex Zinin List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Somehow I missed Sue's argument, so hold it a sec, pls. Sue, to clarify, could you explain why you think MOSPF may be more interesting now, and what do you mean by reconsidering this work? One thing I'd like us to try and avoid is concluding something like "we should try to spend some time thinking about blah" (not putting words in your mouth, Sue). Now is the time when we think. -- Alex http://www.psg.com/~zinin Tuesday, December 20, 2005, 3:38:43 PM, Alex Zinin wrote: > OK, it appears that there is an agreement, at least on this list, that > moving MOSPF to Historic is the right thing. Given that there's lack of > interest in this area whatsoever, it seems to me we don't need to LC this > decision in the OSPF WG, but if Acee and Rohit think it would be useful, we > can do so. > Regarding deprecating MOSPF stuff in the OSPFv3 update. We should do that, > and in fact have to, since unimplemented features can't stay as a spec > progresses along the STD track. From rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Wed Dec 21 11:53:18 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ep7DK-0005eg-PK; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:53:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ep7DI-0005eb-VU for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:53:17 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14452 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:52:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ep7Fw-00051Y-Lq for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:56:02 -0500 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Dec 2005 08:53:06 -0800 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="3.99,280,1131350400"; d="scan'208"; a="17857191:sNHT24595064" Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id jBLGqp4j011192; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:53:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:53:03 -0500 Received: from [10.82.217.153] ([10.82.217.153]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:53:02 -0500 Message-ID: <43A9886D.5000000@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:53:01 -0500 From: Acee Lindem User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Susan Hares References: <6F44D7F6B24A8F4DA0AB46C9BE924F020295C85B@VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> In-Reply-To: <6F44D7F6B24A8F4DA0AB46C9BE924F020295C85B@VS4.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Dec 2005 16:53:02.0802 (UTC) FILETIME=[01BD8B20:01C6064F] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 36c793b20164cfe75332aa66ddb21196 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alex Zinin , rtg-dir@ietf.org, Radia Perlman , Rohit Dube Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org Hi Sue, Susan Hares wrote: >Rohit and Alex: > >My point is that MOSPF has some very good characteristics for the MANET >style networks for a single domain. The single domain properties with a >modern SPF have good characteristics. > > Multicast and MANET is fairly big problem. I won't argue whether or not MOSPF is a good match. However, it is not the current direction (see "Simplified Multicast Forwarding for MANET") and it will not be considered unless someone is willing to put a substantial amount of effort into it. Also, I very much doubt that MOSPF would work "out of the box" in this environment. As such, I don't see why it makes much difference whether or not we make MOSPF historic. >Now, I can just go ahead and use the new draft from D. Ward, >R. Perlman, R. White, and D. Farinacci on ISIS to MAC Addresses. >For layer 3 multicast, it's not clear that MOSPF is a bad idea. >But, it's a re-use of an old idea for a new concept. > > Both MOSPF and the above proposal advertise joined multicast groups. Beyond that, the new proposal doesn't specifically state how the information is used. The above draft does suggest a single SPT in section 3.1 so I wouldn't equate it to MOSPF. Even the proposal did evolve to an MOSPF-like caching of SPT per source, I don't see why it makes any difference if we move MOSPF to historic. >MANET won't touch it. They are constrained to ADOV++ and OLSR++. >(By nature or nurture - it doesn't matter what the issues are the same.) > > >So, I wanted to find someplace to discuss it before we dropped it from a >standard. > >Where is that? Radia indicated the only difference was patent - but >your email indicated that removing MOSPF would change packets. So >before we leap, I just wanted to find a place to chat about this topic. > > TRILL would be the place for this discussion. Thanks, Acee > >Sue > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Rohit Dube [mailto:dube_rohit@yahoo.com] >Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 7:15 PM >To: Alex Zinin >Cc: Acee Lindem; Susan Hares; rtg-dir@ietf.org; Radia Perlman; Rohit >Dube >Subject: Re: Feedback needed: retiring MOSPF and other specs? > >Hello, > >I would strongly suggest that we use "recent and ongoing work" >as a yardstick for protocols/work-items that have been around >for a while rather than "the potential for future work" on the >items. > >Best, >--rohit. > >--- Alex Zinin wrote: > > > >>Somehow I missed Sue's argument, so hold it a sec, pls. >> >>Sue, to clarify, could you explain why you think MOSPF may be more >>interesting now, and what do you mean by reconsidering this work? >> >>One thing I'd like us to try and avoid is concluding something like >> >> >"we > > >>should try to spend some time thinking about blah" (not putting words >> >> >in > > >>your mouth, Sue). Now is the time when we think. >> >>-- >>Alex >> >> > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > >