IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Vendor Private Extension

Tony Li <tli@cisco.com> Mon, 31 July 1995 19:44 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id ab22961; 31 Jul 95 15:44 EDT
Received: from nexen.nexen.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa22957; 31 Jul 95 15:44 EDT
Received: from maelstrom.acton.timeplex.com (maelstrom.nexen.com [204.249.97.5]) by nexen.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA00498; Mon, 31 Jul 1995 15:27:20 -0400
Received: (from root@localhost) by maelstrom.acton.timeplex.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA01114 for rolc-out; Mon, 31 Jul 1995 15:19:04 -0400
Received: from nexen.nexen.com (nexen.nexen.com [204.249.96.18]) by maelstrom.acton.timeplex.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA01105 for <rolc@nexen.com>; Mon, 31 Jul 1995 15:18:58 -0400
Received: from greatdane.cisco.com (greatdane.cisco.com [171.69.1.141]) by nexen.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA00272 for <rolc@nexen.com>; Mon, 31 Jul 1995 15:18:57 -0400
Received: (tli@localhost) by greatdane.cisco.com (8.6.8+c/8.6.5) id KAA22139; Mon, 31 Jul 1995 10:50:34 -0700
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 10:50:34 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Tony Li <tli@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <199507311750.KAA22139@greatdane.cisco.com>
To: curtis@ans.net
Cc: curtis@ans.net, Telford001@aol.com, tlb@eecs.harvard.edu, rolc@nexen.com
In-Reply-To: <199507311546.LAA07482@brookfield.ans.net> (message from Curtis Villamizar on Mon, 31 Jul 1995 11:46:09 -0400)
Subject: Re: Vendor Private Extension
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/

Curtis,

   The extensibility in BGP attriobutes and TCP and IP options, etc, are
   intended for extensions to be defined by the IETF and is not, and was
   never intended for, vendor proprietary extensions.  I was arguing that
   the same should remain true of NHRP.

   Maybe I didn't clear state that.

You were very clear.  Perhaps I wasn't.

Regardless of intent, such extensibility IS used for vendor
proprietary extensions.  And it will happen to NHRP as well.  Now, you
can make it explicit, or it can be done covertly.  Your choice.  I
favor simplicity, which implies that it's explicit.

Tony

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email