Re: RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Chapter Statement

I absolutely disagree.  IP will have to change for modern wireless devices.  Those who say
it won't have their head in the sand.  James we are not taking the PILC approach of creating
a recommendation for L2 providers.  We are a bunch of L2 providers telling IP what it 
needs to do!!! Absolutely has to be standards track.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Kempf" <[email protected]>
To: "Vernon Schryver" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: [pilc] RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Chapter Statement


> Vern
> 
> > Again, the reasons I trust there is no hope of a standards track L2
> > Triggers RFC do not apply to an Information RFC.  As has been said
> > repeatedly, an Informational RFC on L2 triggers could be valuable.
> > Why are you so set the standards track?
> >
> 
> I don't think anybody is set on standards track at this point. The
> reason for doing this as a WG rather than an individual effort is to get
> IETF concensus on it, so that it would represent the best thinking of
> the IETF to other standardization groups, like IEEE, on what's needed
> for a high performance wireless Layer 2 for IP.
> 
>             jak


_______________________________________________
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/