David Waitzman <> Wed, 04 January 1995 16:29 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04173; 4 Jan 95 11:29 EST
Received: from [] by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04167; 4 Jan 95 11:29 EST
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01515; 4 Jan 95 11:29 EST
Received: from MORPHEUS.BBN.COM by (5.65c/5.61+local-20) id <AA00518>; Wed, 4 Jan 1995 07:23:22 -0800
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re:
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 04 Jan 95 08:23:10 -0500. <>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 95 10:21:32 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: David Waitzman <>

> i do not believe that it is appropriate to make a requirement
> 'temporally conditional' in this manner. at this point in time,
> either v2 is ready to be required in r.r. or it is not. if it is
> ready and if we think it is the right thing to do then we should
> mandate it. if it is not ready then it is not ready and we should
> wait for it to be ready.

V2's security features address a critical need for securely managing
routers.  Some routers are already shipping with proposed-standard v2
(ex. cisco version 10.2).  I think that this is a case where having
r.r. conditionally leading a bit will help make it more applicable in
the long term.

Are you worried about what happened with CMOT standardization?