On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:13 AM, John C Klensin <john-i...@jck.com> wrote: > > Unless there are considerations that I don't understand, I agree > with Frank and would go a step further. While the document > indicates that IRIS was not actually deployed for address > registry usage, as far as I know it has not been deployed for > anything else either and has become part of the wreckage along > the path to try to replace Whois for registry database use.
My understanding is that DCHK did get deployed by two domain registries. I do not know if they still use it though. > > If the intent here is to say "we have given up on IRIS" > (probably just recognizing what has happened historically), then > we should be formally obsoleting all of the IRIS documents at > the same time (and/or moving them to Historic) so they are no > longer listed as Proposed Standards and implicitly recommended. > That means at least RFC 4698 but also 4414 and the original > protocol specifications (3982-3983). That would require > broadening the scope of this document somewhat and adjusting its > title but, having skimmed through it, would not require > significant work. In my opinion, "we have given up on IRIS" is the proper thing to say. -andy _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
