IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call for draft-ietf-rolc-apr-00.txt

Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com> Tue, 24 October 1995 02:39 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25150; 23 Oct 95 22:39 EDT
Received: from guelah.nexen.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25146; 23 Oct 95 22:39 EDT
Received: from maelstrom.nexen.com ([204.249.99.5]) by guelah.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA04200; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 22:10:02 -0400
Received: (from root@localhost) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA05363 for rolc-out; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 22:18:10 -0400
Received: from guelah.nexen.com (guelah.nexen.com [204.249.96.19]) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA05354 for <rolc@nexen.com>; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 22:18:07 -0400
Received: from hubbub.cisco.com (hubbub.cisco.com [198.92.30.32]) by guelah.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA04181 for <rolc@nexen.com>; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 22:07:09 -0400
Received: from puli.cisco.com (puli.cisco.com [171.69.1.174]) by hubbub.cisco.com (8.6.12/CISCO.GATE.1.1) with SMTP id TAA03357; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 19:13:10 -0700
Message-Id: <199510240213.TAA03357@hubbub.cisco.com>
To: Andrew Smith <asmith@baynetworks.com>
cc: rolc@nexen.com
Subject: Re: Last Call for draft-ietf-rolc-apr-00.txt
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 23 Oct 95 18:38:45 PDT." <9510240138.AA21184@milliways-le0.engwest>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 95 19:13:10 PDT
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com>
X-Orig-Sender: owner-rolc@nexen.com
Precedence: bulk
X-Info: Submissions to rolc@nexen.com
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to rolc-request@nexen.com
X-Info: Archives for rolc via ftp://ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/ietf-mail-archive/rolc/

Andrew,

> > Subject: Re: Last Call for draft-ietf-rolc-apr-00.txt 
> > Date: Mon, 23 Oct 95 17:36:07 PDT
> > From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com>
> 
> Yakov,
> 
> > In the previous reincarnation of this document we use the term LIS, but
> > at the IP-ATM WG meeting it was stronly suggested that a new term is
> > needed. That is why we picked APR.
> 
> Sorry, I wasn't at the last IETF. How about IASG? (Internetwork Address Sub-Group).
> Does the world really need yet another acronym for this thing?

I have no problems with using the term IASG, provided that this would not cause
too many objections from the members of the ROLC WG.

Yakov.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email