Re: RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Chapter Statement

Something else.  The BOF is taking a different track.  Please read the archives on pilc regarding BOF.
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Kempf" <[email protected]>
To: "Phil Neumiller" <[email protected]>; "Vernon Schryver" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: [pilc] RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Chapter Statement


> Phil,
>
> *What*, precisely, do you propose be standards track? The current draft
> defining abstract L2 triggers or something else?
>
> I do think Vern and James have a point about the necessity of standards
> specifying something on the wire that can be verified for conformance.
>
>             jak
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil Neumiller" <[email protected]>
> To: "James Kempf" <[email protected]>; "Vernon Schryver"
> <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 8:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [pilc] 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/