DECNET/OSI/IP (was: Re: Submission Informational RFC)

John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net> Wed, 03 May 1995 16:07 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04222; 3 May 95 12:07 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04218; 3 May 95 12:07 EDT
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09936; 3 May 95 12:07 EDT
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04211; 3 May 95 12:07 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04207; 3 May 95 12:07 EDT
Received: from mail1.Reston.mci.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09931; 3 May 95 12:07 EDT
Received: from ever (ever.jck.com) by MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.NET (PMDF V5.0-1 #8388) id <01HQ2DQWG5I8000XWE@MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.NET> for iesg@cnri.reston.va.us; Wed, 03 May 1995 12:08:50 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 03 May 1995 12:08:12 -0400
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net>
Subject: DECNET/OSI/IP (was: Re: Submission Informational RFC)
X-Sender: klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net (Unverified)
To: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Message-id: <01HQ2DR56QGK000XWE@MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.NET>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.1b14
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

(Distributed to IESG only)

I don't know how much fuss we want to make about this, and have been hoping
that Allison to give us some guidance on that subject, but there is evidence
that this is a really bad idea -- the points Harald raises being only the
tip of the proverbial iceberg.   Ned Freed and the folks at TGV have done a
fairly comprehensive (and scathing) analysis of this approach and the loose
ends and risks in it that I imagine we could get if we wanted.

I'd strongly favor the "publish as I-D and get community comment" approach
if that is feasible.  The contact on that should probably come from the
Transport AD.  If that is not feasible, and we care, this ought to be either
a candidate for a strong IESG disclaimer or for encouraging
Freed/Vance/Adelman et al to simultaneously publish and informational
"analysis and comment" RFC.

    john