The IP Over NBMA (ION) Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] comments on draft-ietf-iplpdn-frmib-dte-07.txt
James Watt writes: +---------- |Roy Spitzer writes: |+-------- ||James, || ||I agree with the philosophy that the incorporation of fields are not necessary ||unless there is a proven need. It is unforturemate that some of the suggested ||fields were placed in the network provider's code because it was deemed ||necessary for support of unbalanced traffic that the user could offer. If ||it is not configuable by network management in the FR DTE, the feature ||cannot be offered. |+-------- |My recolletion is that, at the time, there were fielded products with this |capability - these products were built to service provider requirements. |It is unfortunate that the service providers as equipment vendors for things |that ended up unused, but that is life. | |In fact, we may find that these capabilities went unused in RFC 1604. At |that point, we would deprecate the objects in the successor to RFC 1604. +------- *** Note: I said "_if_ these capabilities went unused"; what I was thinking was "if these objects went unimplemented". If the objects were not implemented, we are unlikely to have demonstrations of interoperable implementations. This is a barrier to further progress along the IETF standards track. The only way to avoid the barrier is to deprecate the objects. In any event, all this (and more !!) can be discussed in Montreal and/or on the FRS MIB mailing list... Regards, -james ps Anyone wanting to subscribe to the FRS MIB WG mailing list should send mail to frs-mib-request@newbridge.com ____________________________________________________________________________ James W. Watt, james@newbridge.com Ph: +1 613 591-3600 Newbridge Networks 600 March Rd Kanata ON Canada K2K 2E6 FAX:+1 613 591-3680
|
|