IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv7 Selection Criteria

Frank Kastenholz <kasten@ftp.com> Mon, 28 December 1992 15:43 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14421; 28 Dec 92 10:43 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14409; 28 Dec 92 10:43 EST
Received: from babyoil.ftp.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05941; 28 Dec 92 10:46 EST
Received: by ftp.com id AA22926; Mon, 28 Dec 92 10:40:31 -0500
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 10:40:31 -0500
Message-Id: <9212281540.AA22926@ftp.com>
To: jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: IPv7 Selection Criteria
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Frank Kastenholz <kasten@ftp.com>
Reply-To: kasten@ftp.com
Cc: dcrocker@mordor.stanford.edu, jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu, criteria@ftp.com, ericf@atc.boeing.com

 >     However, I note that there continues to be a sentiment in favor of having
 >     an august body make such a pronouncement.
 > 
 >         Hmm, be interesting to know just how universal this feeling is. Guess

Off the top of my head, on a monday morning after a long weekend, I
can not recall anyone advocating multiple IP-layer protocols (issues
of transition and coexistance-during-evaluation aside). Read "One
Protocol to Bind Them All" in the Criteria document.

--
Frank Kastenholz

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email