IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Transition

William Allen Simpson <bill.simpson@um.cc.umich.edu> Fri, 13 November 1992 15:11 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05072; 13 Nov 92 10:11 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05063; 13 Nov 92 10:11 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10206; 13 Nov 92 10:12 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05058; 13 Nov 92 10:11 EST
Received: from Angband.Stanford.EDU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10200; 13 Nov 92 10:12 EST
Received: from via.oak1.merit.edu by Angband.Stanford.EDU (5.65/inc-1.0) id AA00737; Fri, 13 Nov 92 07:12:14 -0800
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:06:11 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: William Allen Simpson <bill.simpson@um.cc.umich.edu>
Message-Id: <916.bill.simpson@um.cc.umich.edu>
To: poised@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Reply-To: bsimpson@angband.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Transition

We had a requirements spec for PPP about 4 years ago.

The Network Access Server WG is largely concerned with drafting a
requirements spec.

There were requirements and evaluations for all of the recent routing
protocols.

Most protocols just have the requirements (rationale) at the beginning
as an introduction.  I think that's good.

Do we really want to go to a 17 volume SDM70 process specification?

Bill.Simpson@um.cc.umich.edu

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status