Re: Old RFCs going to Historic
Carsten Bormann <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.pppext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> As for RFC 1618, it has had trouble with reality Yes... Apparently, the (US-based) author was rather confused about ISDN. A common situation in 1994, so I don't blame him. > (is octet sync really > recommended with ISDN?), Well, 1618 says this should be done only in the presence of prior configuration (default is bit-sync, which is unfortunate, but reality). > but perhaps needs to be removed from the > list. Yes. The "right thing" would be to write this simple document up again, removing all the cruft (octet-sync, BONDING, V.120 -- does anybody else feel a dozen years younger? :-), and moving it on to DS. *THAT* would be de-crufting. Gruesse, Carsten _______________________________________________ Pppext mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext