Re: Last Call: RIP to Standard

Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au> Wed, 03 June 1992 01:43 UTC

To: vcerf@nri.reston.va.us
Cc: ietf@isi.edu
Subject: Re: Last Call: RIP to Standard
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 02 Jun 92 07:19:59 -0400. <9206020720.aa05878@NRI.Reston.VA.US>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1992 02:08:43 +1000
Message-Id: <10142.707501323@munnari.oz.au>
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>

    Date:        Tue, 02 Jun 92 07:19:59 -0400
    From:        vcerf@NRI.Reston.VA.US
    Message-ID:  <9206020720.aa05878@NRI.Reston.VA.US>

Vint, no-one is questioning any of this part, not at all ...

    I agree with Bill Simpson - if RIP-2 is a backward compatible
    improvement over RIP-1, nothing is lost and something gained
    by putting RIP-2 onto the standards track and, assuming it
    proves stable in operational settings, eventually making it
    an Internet Standard.

However, this makes no sense ...

    At that point (and only then) would RIP
    retire to the historic collection.

and that was the point of the message to which Bill replied.

The point is that RIP-2 by itself is nothing - it needs RIP-1
to remain to make sense at all.  That is, RIP-2 is not a
replacement for RIP, its an addendum.

You could consider it kind of like a new option RFC for Telnet.
Using the existance of the "terminal linemode option" RFC for
telnet (rfc1184) as an excuse to relegate the Telnet RFC (rfc854)
to historic status would be absurd.  The same applies to RIP-2
and RIP.

kre

Re: Last Call: RIP to Standard vcerf
Last Call: RIP to Standard Gary Malkin
Last Call: RIP to Standard IESG Secretary
Re: Last Call: RIP to Standard Robert Elz
Last Call: RIP to Standard Gary Malkin
Re: Last Call: RIP to Standard William Allen Simpson
Re: Last Call: RIP to Standard Bob Hinden
Last Call: RIP to Standard William Allen Simpson
Re: Last Call: RIP to Standard vcerf