On Tuesday, April 16, 2002, at 02:43 , Christian Huitema wrote:
> Fine, but Randy is also right when he points out that just because a
> spec is not an IETF standard does not mean that the spec is proprietary.
Christian,
As deployed IS-IS is not fully documented *anyplace*. What is
actually deployed is not the same as ISO IS-IS, nor is it the same as
RFC-1195, nor are those 2 documents (and a few other more recent
RFCs) sufficient to create an interoperable IS-IS.
Proprietary is a commonly used term to describe something that does
not have a full, complete, and open specification -- which is the
current state of IS-IS. Now folks (including me) are trying to fix
that issue by publishing sundry non-standard RFCs on how the as-deployed
IS-IS really works (which effort is to be applauded). But the
bottom-line
remains that *today* the as-deployed IS-IS and the documented IS-IS
aren't the same. I wish they were.
Now the original point was someone else's inaccurate claim that the
IETF
let both IS-IS and OSPF bloom, when really the IETF originally chose
OSPF --
and IS-IS made a separate come-back in the deployed world during the
mid-90s.
Cheers,
Ran
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
