question

Eric Fleischman <ericf@atc.boeing.com> Tue, 26 January 1993 00:41 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19983; 25 Jan 93 19:41 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19977; 25 Jan 93 19:41 EST
Received: from babyoil.ftp.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03901; 25 Jan 93 19:43 EST
Received: from atc.boeing.com by ftp.com with SMTP id AA08505; Mon, 25 Jan 93 19:37:59 -0500
Received: by atc.boeing.com (5.57) id AA24057; Mon, 25 Jan 93 16:40:55 -0800
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:40:55 -0800
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Eric Fleischman <ericf@atc.boeing.com>
Message-Id: <9301260040.AA24057@atc.boeing.com>
To: criteria@ftp.com
Subject: question

I would be very interested in learning from the vendors of communications 
products what they perceive the software development costs to be for the 
various IPvN options.  While absolute numbers would vary between vendors and
would probably be proprietary, I think that relative numbers (i.e., 
"we believe that X is noticably more difficult to develop than Y and so it
would probably have a higher price tag") would be most informative -- and 
would be useful information to assist in judging between the various options,
especially if certain options are "tied" by the criteria.  Please note
that my presupposition is that this type of information is not
appropriate to be added to the IPvN "criteria list" but that it
nevertheless is quite interesting and relevant to consider. 

I, personally, would also be interested in learning if there is a consistent 
perception among the vendors in regards as to which option is easier 
to build and which is harder to build.  That is, there could well be a
variety of opinions and that would also be of interest.

Sincerely yours,

--Eric Fleischman