Procedural question (Re: SIP API spec)

Frank T Solensky <> Wed, 27 January 1993 16:15 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05892; 27 Jan 93 11:15 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05888; 27 Jan 93 11:15 EST
Received: from Sun.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14590; 27 Jan 93 11:18 EST
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (engmail1-bb.Corp.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA17525; Wed, 27 Jan 93 08:16:36 PST
Received: from sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM by Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA26087; Wed, 27 Jan 93 08:17:59 PST
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (engmail1) by sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA20397; Wed, 27 Jan 93 08:15:08 PST
Received: from Sun.COM (sun-barr) by Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA26010; Wed, 27 Jan 93 08:16:33 PST
Received: from by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA17400; Wed, 27 Jan 93 08:15:05 PST
Received: from ( by (4.1/SMI-4.1[UB-1.8]) id AA12915; Wed, 27 Jan 93 08:15:00 PST
Received: from by (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA17921; Wed, 27 Jan 93 11:15:13 EST
Received: by (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA07748; Wed, 27 Jan 93 11:14:59 EST
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 11:14:59 EST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Frank T Solensky <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Procedural question (Re: SIP API spec)
Content-Length: 714

Hi --

	I've been thinking: most of the transition issues with all of the
major IPv7 proposals need to deal with similar changes at the API level.
(I had also indicated to the TUBA group at the last IETF that I'd write a
similar spec from a perspective outside of any one of the proposals, but the
day job tends to get in the way).

	What I'd like to suggest is that this document serve that purpose:
instead of referencing SIP specifically, we could refer to a "Better
Internet Protocol (BIP)" and only refer to specific proposals as needed.

	Before getting down to the details on how this would affect the spec,
I thought I'd just mention this idea first to see what the general consensus
							-- Frank