Re: Last Call: Use of ISO CLNP in TUBA Environments to Proposed

[Eva Kuiper <[e-mail]>]

I agree with Brian. These documents should be moved to standards on their
own merit independent of IPng. The necessary prototypes, demonstrations,
etc, have been fulfilled. If the standards have been completed sooner than
people expected, so much the better. I think that they should be forwarded
as requested.

Eva Kuiper
HP
> 
> Folks,
> 
> >--------- Text sent by Craig Partridge follows:
> > 
> > 
> > > The IESG has received a request from the TCP/UDP over CLNP-addressed
> > > Networks Working Group to consider <draft-ietf-tuba-clnp-03.txt> "Use
> > > of ISO CLNP in TUBA Environments" for the status of Proposed Standard.
> >  
> > Hi:
> > 
> >     I believe that standardizing (or putting into the standards track)
> > any of the IPtng proposals before we've decided which one we are likely
> > to pick is to revive the CMOT/SNMP/HEMS competing standards migraine.
> > 
> >     Given that the various BOFs on IP criteria are still having trouble
> > determining what the right IPtng goals are, how can we possibly think of
> > putting one of the proposals on the standards track?
> > 
> 
> I think there is an element of misunderstanding here. I don't see this
> as putting TUBA on the IPng standards track. It is actually saying
> "whatever IPng is, people WILL be running TCP and UDP over CLNP, and
> this is (part of) how to do it." As a network operator, I want to
> see a complete document set for TUBA so that if and when TUBA products
> appear, I have something to measure them against. This is quite
> independent of which proposal IESG ultimately recommends to the
> IETF as IPng.
> 
> Regards,
>       Brian Carpenter CERN, [e-mail]
>                       voice [phone], fax [phone]
> 
> | This is a personal opinion, and not an endorsement of            |
> | PIP, SIP, TP/IX, Nimrod, TUBA or anything. Really.               |
>