[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ih] [IP] OSI: The Internet That Wasn't

On 02/08/2013 15:15, John Curran wrote:
> On Jul 31, 2013, at 7:15 AM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
>> As to IPv6 turning out different, ahh soon they forget.  The ground rules were set so that the answer had to be anything but CLNP.  
> John - 
>   Can you elaborate?
> /John

I'm not John or /John, but I was there, and it's certainly true that
IETF change control of the foundational protocol was a very major issue
in some minds. I wouldn't say it was a ground rule, however.

The technical evaluation included CLNP/TUBA/FOOBAR until a very late
stage (May 1994) but at that point a proposal review that I drafted said:

"Nevertheless, a number of important IPng
 requirements are not met by TUBA as it stands, and modifications to
 CLNP are probably needed to meet them."

Since I entered the IPng process as a CLNP advocate, I didn't write
this lightly.