Re: Status of New RFC for IP Routers
Noel Chiappa <jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu> Mon, 18 July 1994 22:31 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14727; 18 Jul 94 18:31 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14723; 18 Jul 94 18:31 EDT
Received: from [128.42.5.4] by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21917; 18 Jul 94 18:31 EDT
Received: from ginger.lcs.mit.edu by moe.rice.edu (AA08877); Mon, 18 Jul 94 16:43:40 CDT
Received: by ginger.lcs.mit.edu id AA06199; Mon, 18 Jul 94 17:43:38 -0400
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 17:43:38 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Noel Chiappa <jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-Id: <9407182143.AA06199@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>
To: kasten@ftp.com, rreq@rice.edu
Subject: Re: Status of New RFC for IP Routers
Cc: jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu
> Currently RFC 1009 will be called out in the MIL-STD as a Base Standard.
The new draft is not being published as a standard. It too is out of
date (though not as much as 1009). Specifying the new document would
be akin to specifying the rfc1171/2 version of ppp.
Hey, it's better than nothing, though... using 1009 would be worse than a
joke, it would be folly.
Noel
- Re: Status of New RFC for IP Routers Noel Chiappa
- Status of New RFC for IP Routers Dave Esker
- Re: Status of New RFC for IP Routers Frank Kastenholz