Re: Amsterdam BOF
Greg Vaudreuil <gvaudre@CNRI.Reston.VA.US> Mon, 19 April 1993 20:37 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa26343;
19 Apr 93 16:37 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa26339;
19 Apr 93 16:37 EDT
Received: from atlas.xylogics.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07359;
19 Apr 93 16:37 EDT
Received: by atlas.xylogics.com id AA02283 (5.65c/UK-2.1-930202);
Mon, 19 Apr 1993 16:38:11 -0400
Received: from IETF.nri.reston.VA.US (ietf.cnri.reston.va.us) by
atlas.xylogics.com with SMTP
id AA11336 (5.65c/UK-2.1-930202); Mon, 19 Apr 1993 16:37:58 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa26293;
19 Apr 93 16:35 EDT
To: Gary Scott Malkin <gmalkin@xylogics.com>
Cc: stev@ftp.com, ietf-rip@xylogics.com, gvaudre@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: Re: Amsterdam BOF
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 19 Apr 93 16:15:46 EDT."
<267.199304192015@atlas.xylogics.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 93 16:35:28 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Greg Vaudreuil <gvaudre@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
Message-Id: <9304191635.aa26293@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
Gee, If you have multiple interoperable implementations, no need to change the spec, and just need to conduct research for the routing plans, then only one meeting really needs to be held. Whether ir is a BOF or the WG is re-started is really an open question. I think I agree that teh WG should not have been concluded and it can be restarted. Are there any changes to the docs to reflect implementation and operational expierence? I Greg V.
- Amsterdam BOF Gary Scott Malkin
- Re: Amsterdam BOF Marshall Rose (via RadioMail)
- Re: Amsterdam BOF stev knowles
- Amsterdam BOF Gary Scott Malkin
- Amsterdam BOF Gary Scott Malkin
- Re: Amsterdam BOF Fred Baker
- Re: Amsterdam BOF Greg Vaudreuil