Re: [Fwd] ISO wants Collaboration with Internet Community

don provan <sgiblab!novell.com!troi!donp@uucp-gw-2.pa.dec.com> Wed, 17 February 1993 00:19 UTC

To: sgiblab!decwrl!info-ietf@uucp-gw-2.pa.dec.com
Path: troi!sgiblab!newsun!donp
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: don provan <sgiblab!novell.com!troi!donp@uucp-gw-2.pa.dec.com>
Newsgroups: info.ietf
Subject: Re: [Fwd] ISO wants Collaboration with Internet Community
Message-Id: <1993Feb16.184223.10935@novell.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 18:42:23 +0000
References: <9302161713.AA13413@ftp.com>
Organization: Novell, Inc., San Jose, California
Lines: 13
Nntp-Posting-Host: na.sjf.novell.com

In article <9302161713.AA13413@ftp.com> kasten@ftp.com writes:
>Let's suppose that we decide that CLNP is the next IPv7. What this
>means is that there will be some RFC, the product of the TUBA w.g.
>most likely, that is titled "IP Version 7" (or something like that)
>and it would _amazingly_ similar to the ISO CLNP spec.

I assume this means that it wouldn't use the same media layer protocol
identifier (such as the 802.2 SAP value) as CLNP, right?  To me,
that's the one thing that would distinguish CLNP from "something just
like CLNP but different".  (Offhand, i don't think this is really what
the CLNP people have in mind...)
						don provan
						donp@novell.com

Re: [Fwd] ISO wants Collaboration with Internet C… don provan