Re: RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Chapter Statement

> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, James Carlson wrote:
> 
> > If they do interoperate, then we're no longer talking about bits on
> > the wire.  We're talking about implementation features.  I think that
> > it's at best dangerous to standardize implementation features because
> > of the quite obvious problem of tilting the interoperability playing
> > field towards one vendor or another.
> >
> > Given that the changes make no observable difference, how does it
> > matter?
> 
> A similar argument can be made for TCP congestion control algorithms,
> which are merely implementation features that are internal to the box,
> and do not specify protocol bits on the wire. TCP congestion control
> is a host implementation feature, and shouldn't be standardised!

I was going to say the same thing about routing and QoS.  Routing
affects spacial aspects of the bits on the wire(s) but not the bits.  QoS 
affects the temporal aspects of IP but not the bits.   Both topics are
of great interest to the IETF and Internet community.   I think this argument
about bits on the wire is getting a bit too pedantic / pedagogical.  The IETF
is what people bring to it (and what the IESG allows of course! :-).




_______________________________________________
pilc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pilc
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pilc-charter.html
http://pilc.grc.nasa.gov/