Jan 25, 2018, at 5:42 PM, John C Klensin <john-i...@jck.com> wrote: > > > --On Thursday, January 25, 2018 10:20 -0500 Andrew Newton > <a...@hxr.us> wrote: > >> 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. > > Even if they do, a move to Historic and/or Obsolete doesn't > change their situation, it is just an implicit recommendation > that others should not rush out to deploy this or even actively > consider it as a option. If something more nuanced is needed, > it is probably time to write an A/S and have this particular > registry/ subdomain removal be part of that. > >>> 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. > > Sad although probably right. It was and remains, at least in > my opinion, a nice piece of work. That actually leads to > another commend, which is that I'd much rather see a document > like this say something equivalent to "overtaken by events" or > "use no longer recommended" rather than "deprecated". > > best, > john
I would agree on the majority opinion ; the wording doesn’t mAtter anymore, The majority option is to be respected ; For sure, if They offered collaboration and didn’t leave some ambiguity ; A lot or some wouldn’t have had mattered anymore; > like this say something equivalent to "overtaken by events" or > "use no longer recommended" rather than "deprecated". > > best, > john Well; they are all synonyms in this case; The facts not the Vocab ; “Overtaken by events”was really a big loss of time; To 4698, ( whom btw , 4698 , is the only news during all this time ) A Potential isn’t to be diminutive for whom who have it ; Diminutive is the real (in order not to say only ) [ART], Many of us here are gifted and dedicated to this kind of [ART], I think 4698 has been oversteering ; For some time ; And neglected for oversteering ; >>> That would require broadening the scope of this document >>> somewhat and adjusting its title but, having skimmed through >>> it, would not require significant work. Is true; constructive input doesn’t come when such a behavior comes from surrounding people; The communities shouldn’t stay passive when one of them needs their help and support , and though passing through very difficult circumstances kept on being enthusiastic and dedicated ; At the End of the Day ; too much time and energy was lost from 4698; and for him. Well-being and peace of mind can only sort out nice things out of a beautiful mind; When all the effort isn’t rewarded on any level; though support and backing up a fresh start within the community ; Not only those weren’t offered ; They were suppressed and did nothing ; Literally ; Nothing but negativity and harmful effect on personal and professional life; If. Not mutual, and not clear, and of a negative effect, a result of isolation and loss of skill, And there was always something fishy about it , 4698 may have been manipulated, overloaded,but kept on being productive, the only damage is fatigue and loss of interest . It will never be a dropped course, but from now on mathematics will be ruling; taking should be as much as been given ,and effortless ; because the community , And if somebody cares, Would be loosing quality input and a “friend “ of them loosing more energy than he should. [ART]? The main looser; 4698 would never consider opting out , but never digging that much and being taken for granted anymore, Cheers >
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
