IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Status of Requirements for IP Routers RFC

Noel Chiappa <jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu> Tue, 26 April 1994 13:27 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07351; 26 Apr 94 9:27 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07346; 26 Apr 94 9:27 EDT
Received: from Jessica.Stanford.EDU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07836; 26 Apr 94 9:27 EDT
Received: from ginger.lcs.mit.edu (GINGER.LCS.MIT.EDU [18.26.0.82]) by jessica.Stanford.EDU (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id GAA22681 for <ietf-rreq@jessica.stanford.edu>; Tue, 26 Apr 1994 06:04:23 -0700
Received: by ginger.lcs.mit.edu id AA02987; Tue, 26 Apr 94 09:04:03 -0400
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 09:04:03 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Noel Chiappa <jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-Id: <9404261304.AA02987@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>
To: mandrews@alias.com, tli@cisco.com
Subject: Re: Status of Requirements for IP Routers RFC
Cc: ietf-rreq@jessica.stanford.edu, jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu

    do we have any idea when a version of IPng is going to emerge? I'm
    silently wondering if by the time we get a new routers RFC out of drafts
    and into the standards track, how soon until it is obsolete like RFC 1009?

Well, given that that a new version of the document should be out as an I-D in
about 9 months, since there is a lot of good text there already, I think it's
worth the effort. I figure even *if* we make an IPng decision Real Soon, it
won't start to be deployed widely for 3 years, and a lot of boxes are going to
be sold in the interim. I doubt the premise, too...

	Noel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email