Re: SDRP working group Tue, 17 November 1992 19:30 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02427; 17 Nov 92 14:30 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02423; 17 Nov 92 14:30 EST
Received: from PIZZA.BBN.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11871; 17 Nov 92 14:29 EST
Received: from pizza by PIZZA.BBN.COM id aa16842; 17 Nov 92 14:20 EST
Received: from BBN.COM by PIZZA.BBN.COM id aa16838; 17 Nov 92 14:15 EST
Received: from by BBN.COM id aa25320; 17 Nov 92 14:14 EST
Received: from by with local SMTP id <>; Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:13:06 +0000
To: Tony Li <>
Subject: Re: SDRP working group
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 17 Nov 92 10:17:48 PST." <>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 19:13:04 +0000
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Message-ID: <9211171429.aa11871@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>

>   SDRP, in its current specification, is definitely not a
>   self-sustainable inter-domain *routing* protocol. By
>   self-sustainable, I mean that it should be possible for a site to
>   run *only* SDRP, and still be able to communicate with the rest of
>   the world. If it is not self sustainable- then, IMHO, it is not a
>   routing protocol but a source forwarding extension to IDRP.
>Is this anything other than a semantic quibble over the definition of
>a "routing protocol"?


I am not objecting to calling SDRP by any name you like.
However, I was trying to remove the confusion that mismatch
in the (current) specification of SDRP and its name caused
to me. If SDRP is going to be developed as a source routing
protocol as charter (and you also) suggests, does that mean IDPR is 
dead. (I am asking this question because one of the main contributor 
to IDPR and SDRP effort is the same).