The IP over ATM Mailing List Archive by date

[asmith@Baynetworks.COM (Andrew Smith)]

OK, then at least one reader of ipmc-12 got confused into thinking that
section 6.2 was a part of the specification. Can you please put a big 
disclaimer there somewhere noting that this is not a part of the 
proposed/draft standard right now? If you do want it to be a part of
the specification then it needs some more work.

Andrew


********************************************************************************
Andrew Smith					TEL:	+1 408 764 1574
Technology Synergy 				FAX:	+1 408 988 5525
Bay Networks, Inc.				E-m:	asmith@baynetworks.com
Santa Clara, CA
********************************************************************************


> From gja@thumper.bellcore.com Wed Mar 27 08:49:04 1996
> To: asmith@BayNetworks.COM (Andrew Smith)
> Cc: gja@bellcore.com, ip-atm@nexen.com, gja@thumper.bellcore.com
> Subject: Re: MARS ipmc-12 suggestions 
> In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 26 Mar 1996 15:34:57 -0800.
>              <9603262334.AA09092@milliways-le0.engwest> 
> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:45:22 -0500
> From: Grenville Armitage <gja@bellcore.com>
> Content-Length: 1208
> 
> 
> 	[..]
> >>> ipmc-12 hardly says all that much about MCSs anyway, punting
> >>> that to a separate document on "What an MCS should or should not expect"
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> >>> (which is what I'd encouraged Rajesh to be developing).
> >>>
> >>> That's where you tighten up (or explicitly allow) certain MCSs behaviours
> >>> (to fill in the gaps I _deliberately_ tried to leave in ipmc-12).
> >>
> >>The ipmc-12 version that I've got has a bunch of rules and regulations
> >>about the MARS<->MCS interface:
> 
> Eh? One or two messages ago you where lecturing me on how the vagueness
> in ipmc-12's  MARS<->MCS could let people build restricted MCSs. Now
> you're claiming the restrictions are in ipmc-12. Its hard to clarify
> anything for you Andrew when you change tunes.
> 
> >>what I hear you saying is that ipmc-13 
> >>will remove these, correct?
> 
> No. And if you read what you'd quoted, you wouldn't have got that
> impression. ipmc-12 has some not-clear-enough-for-Andrew guidlines
> on certain issues (like MCSs) _because_ there's (a) another document
> in the wings to cover these issues, and (b) we need implementation
> experience to really know what is ultimately useful.
> 
> gja
>