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

• Subject: [ih] [IP] OSI: The Internet That Wasn't
• From: scott.brim at gmail.com (Scott Brim)
• Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 09:29:51 +0200
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]om> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]om> <[email protected]> <[email protected]om> <[email protected][10.10.24.75]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

On 08/02/13 06:20, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
> 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.

iirc the issue of change control was brought up as a justification for
objections to CLNP, not as a reason before the objection.

• Follow-Ups:
  • [ih] [IP] OSI: The Internet That Wasn't
    • From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)

• References:
  • [ih] [IP] OSI: The Internet That Wasn't
    • From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
  • [ih] [IP] OSI: The Internet That Wasn't
    • From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)

• Prev by Date: [ih] [IP] OSI: The Internet That Wasn't
• Next by Date: [ih] [IP] OSI: The Internet That Wasn't
• Previous by thread: [ih] [IP] OSI: The Internet That Wasn't
• Next by thread: [ih] [IP] OSI: The Internet That Wasn't
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread