[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Expired swIPe
At 13:43 6/14/94 -0400, Steve Kent wrote:
>Brian,
>
> I think it would be nice to reach concensus within the WG on
>an IPSP protocol spec before declaring any particular implementations
>as compliant.
>
>Steve
I am not trying to imply that swIPe is necessarily the final output from
the WG. The swIPe draft has expired and we need something to keep it
current and moving. I was just pointing out that swIPe has met the
requirements to move along the track to at least "draft standard." There
is a draft and there appear to be at least two independent implementations.
I would say that swIPe is certainly useful for collecting experiential
information. Just because we do that doesn't mean that we can't make
significant changes and/or even adopt a different protocol.
I have no axe to grind nor do I have a preference for swIPe. I would just
like to see it placed where it can help move the work of the WG along.
More than anything else I was just asking the question as to why this draft
couldn't proceed.
Something tells me that I might be stepping on a political "mine" here. I
get the feeling that things might happening in the background to which I am
not privvy. If so, would someone please fill me in (privately).
Brian Lloyd, President Lloyd Internetworking
brian@lloyd.com 3031 Alhambra Drive
(916) 676-1147 - voice Suite 102
(916) 676-3442 - fax Cameron Park, CA 95682