Sorry for the delay in replying; I was returning from the QUIC meeting in Melbourne.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 7:13 AM, John C Klensin <john-i...@jck.com> wrote: > > > --On Thursday, January 25, 2018 14:55 +0100 Frank Ellermann > <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkzt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 22 January 2018, Ted Hardie wrote: > >> If you have thoughts > > > > Maybe "obsoletes 4698" instead of only "updates 4698" would be > > clearer for readers of RFC 4698. > > Ted, > > 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. > > If the intent here is to say "we have given up on IRIS" > This came up in the context of the IAB trying to work out how useful some of the existing delegations in .arpa are, and the current draft reflects that. Updating RFC 4698 was, in other words, the simplest thing we could do. Given the feedback, I'm fine with updating that to "obsoletes RFC 4698", since the data support the notion that this is not currently in use. I don't have the data to support a broader statement about IRIS, as I know that there was some deployment at one time. I would be fine seeing a deprecation if one is warranted, in other words, but I'm not sure I can put one forward to the community. Do you object to obsoleting just RFC 4698 by this document? regards, Ted > (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. > > By contrast, if you believe that the ISOS protocols and the > other registries and identifiers are still relevant for > implementation and use, I think it would be helpful if this > document said that explicitly. For example, you might > explicitly indicate that IRIS had additional applications (with > a reference or two) and that, unlike the address registries, > those are still in use and Recommended. > > best, > john > > >
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
