Re: IPv7 Selection Criteria

Noel Chiappa <jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu> Mon, 28 December 1992 16:38 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15030; 28 Dec 92 11:38 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15024; 28 Dec 92 11:38 EST
Received: from babyoil.ftp.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07408; 28 Dec 92 11:41 EST
Received: from GINGER.LCS.MIT.EDU by ftp.com with SMTP id AA24023; Mon, 28 Dec 92 11:36:48 -0500
Received: by ginger.lcs.mit.edu id AA00908; Mon, 28 Dec 92 11:36:29 -0500
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 11:36:29 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Noel Chiappa <jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-Id: <9212281636.AA00908@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>
To: criteria@ftp.com, ericf@atc.boeing.com, jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu, kasten@ftp.com
Subject: Re: IPv7 Selection Criteria

    >> 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.

    Off the top of my head, on a monday morning after a long weekend, I
    can not recall anyone advocating multiple IP-layer protocols

Ah, I wasn't disagreeing that we all want one (I think everyone understand the
utility of having a ubiquitous packet service), just wondering if everyone
wants the "august" IAB/IESG/whatever to make a pronouncement, or whether
people want some more broadly based decision (e.g. the market).

	Noel