[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ih] [IP] OSI: The Internet That Wasn't
- Subject: [ih] [IP] OSI: The Internet That Wasn't
- From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
- Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 16:20:29 +1200
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <CAKx4trj_Ec12SdODiSvMni2E9m2zKuL_Pq4DvFCHKqyaHP-JVQ@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CAPv4CP8Vfja=U+H+Qku4dRSLridy53NJx4N6HeR-MAVYjtQ3SQ@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAPv4CP_9mAiSJHvUFZPW=omhi0=7fa0uaU9ESJtFV6c4kmt_HA@mail.gmail.com> <a06240808ce1e9f98acd9@[10.10.24.75]> <[email protected]>
On 02/08/2013 15:15, John Curran wrote:
> On Jul 31, 2013, at 7:15 AM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> As to IPv6 turning out different, ahh soon they forget. The ground rules were set so that the answer had to be anything but CLNP.
>
> John -
>
> Can you elaborate?
>
> /John
I'm not John or /John, but I was there, and it's certainly true that
IETF change control of the foundational protocol was a very major issue
in some minds. I wouldn't say it was a ground rule, however.
The technical evaluation included CLNP/TUBA/FOOBAR until a very late
stage (May 1994) but at that point a proposal review that I drafted said:
"Nevertheless, a number of important IPng
requirements are not met by TUBA as it stands, and modifications to
CLNP are probably needed to meet them."
Since I entered the IPng process as a CLNP advocate, I didn't write
this lightly.
Brian