TUBA- IETF/ISO Convergence

/C=CA/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/S=KNIGHTSON/DDV=KNIGHTSON.KG/DDT=ID/@gemdes.carleton.ca Wed, 24 March 1993 21:03 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa27531; 24 Mar 93 16:03 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa27527; 24 Mar 93 16:03 EST
Received: from p.lanl.gov by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20423; 24 Mar 93 16:03 EST
Received: from noc-gw.lanl.gov by p.lanl.gov (5.65/1.14) id AA29295; Wed, 24 Mar 93 14:00:33 -0700
Received: by noc-gw.lanl.gov (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA07388; Wed, 24 Mar 93 13:59:56 MST
Return-Path: </C=CA/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/O=GEMDES/S=KNIGHTSON/DDV=KNIGHTSON.KG/DDT=ID/@gemdes.carleton.ca>
Received: from p.lanl.gov by noc-gw.lanl.gov (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA07384; Wed, 24 Mar 93 13:59:54 MST
Received: from gemdes.carleton.ca by p.lanl.gov (5.65/1.14) id AA29269; Wed, 24 Mar 93 13:59:53 -0700
Received: by gemdes.carleton.ca (AIX 3.1/UCB 5.61/4.03) id AA04449; Wed, 24 Mar 93 15:56:01 -0500
Date: 24 Mar 93 20:27:Z GMT
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: /C=CA/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/S=KNIGHTSON/DDV=KNIGHTSON.KG/DDT=ID/@gemdes.carleton.ca
To: Reply not requested <tuba@lanl.gov>
Cc: Reply not requested <alfano@mprgate.mpr.ca>, Reply not requested <rthomas@dsi.doc.ca>, Reply not requested <whyman@mwassocs.demon.co.uk>, Reply not requested <noop@merit.edu>, Reply not requested </C=CA/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/PRMD=BNR/S=Mills/I=RJ/G=Roy/DDV=1507159/DDT=ID/@gemdes.carleton.ca>
Subject: TUBA- IETF/ISO Convergence
Message-Id: <MNGA-7156-6200*/C=CA/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/O=ENVOY 100/>

P2-Body: IA5

Gentlefolk,

I can't imagine ISO abandoning CLNP, ES-IS and IS-IS. Nor GOSIP
for that matter.

All this talk about "no preconditions" is dreaming in
technicolour.

"No preconditions" is being used as a weapon, and obviously must
mean not accepting CLNP. Logically the IETF is deliberately
putting itself in a position where it cannot accept CLNP in any
form, since this would then represent a precondition. This is not
a true spirit of collaboration.

Now you may argue that ISO stands to gain and the IETF loses.
This is mind-set, not reality. ISO is willing to share
development of all its Standards with the IETF to effectively
direct and control. Seems like a lot to me. All enhancements to
CLNP required by IETF accepted by ISO!!!!

All this politicking is wonderful, and lets people blow off
steam, but its time to get down to the real agenda. Forget about,
style, formats, organizational differences, this is all a
rat-hole. Let's cut the bafflegab and get down to business.

The real and only question worth considering is the adoption, or
not, of CLNP, i.e.TUBA. The main focus for collaboration is
CLNP.I believe that this is what ISO is willing to hand over to
the IETF. Of course it would open the door to further
collaboration in the future on things NEW to both organizations,
a new Transport Protocol perhaps for muultimedia operation.
Everything would follow from this single momentous decision.

I do not think that ISO has agreed to take anything that the IETF
might throw its way, especially if that something would mean the
abandonment of CLNP,ES-IS, IS-IS etc. This is clearly ridiculous.

Now you may all regard this a precondition, but that's a mind set
problem!!!

Keith Knightson

PS.I will now retire to my concrete bunker!!!!