IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: SOS & LDBP

yeongw@spartacus.psi.com Mon, 16 March 1992 17:15 UTC

Received: from nri.nri.reston.va.us by ietf.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01040; 16 Mar 92 12:15 EST
Received: from nri.reston.va.us by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03344; 16 Mar 92 12:17 EST
Received: from bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03330; 16 Mar 92 12:17 EST
Received: from spartacus.psi.com by bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id <g.05217-0@bells.cs.ucl.ac.uk>; Mon, 16 Mar 1992 13:43:12 +0000
Received: from localhost by spartacus.psi.com (5.61/1.3-PSI/PSINet) id AA00272; Mon, 16 Mar 92 08:40:28 -0500
Message-Id: <9203161340.AA00272@spartacus.psi.com>
To: Colin Robbins <c.robbins@xtel.co.uk>
Subject: Re: SOS & LDBP
Cc: osi-ds@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Reply-To: yeongw@psi.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 16 Mar 92 11:56:12 +0000. <"3798 Mon Mar 16 11:55:15 1992"@xtel.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 08:40:27 -0500
From: yeongw@spartacus.psi.com

>    >Depending on resource and other
>    >restrictions, implementors and users will have to decide on
>    >their own set of tradeoffs: now they have three choices (LDBP,
>    >the SOS and the full OSI stack), instead of one.
> 
> This is my main worry.
> Instead of implementors all using one protocol, they can choose any 
> one of three.  

We differ in opinion here. I think this is a positive, not negative
development.

However this is a good point, and I will bring up this message at the
OSI-DS meeting today.


Wengyik

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email