At 09:46 PM 6/26/99 +0200, you wrote:
>> Um, wasn't the IAB turfed out on it's ear a few
>> years ago when it tried to mandate OSI or something like that ?
>
>Not quite. IAB recommended using CLNP as the basis for the next version
>of the Internet Protocol. This isn't quite the same as mandating OSI :-)
>>From RFC 1752:
>
> The IETF formed the Routing and Addressing (ROAD) group in November
> 1991 at the Santa Fe IETF meeting to explore this dilemma and guide
> the IETF on the issues. The ROAD group reported their work in March
> 1992 at the San Diego IETF meeting. [Gross92] The impact of the
> recommendations ranged from "immediate" to "long term" and included
> adopting the CIDR route aggregation proposal [Fuller93] for reducing
> the rate of routing table growth and recommending a call for
> proposals "to form working groups to explore separate approaches for
> bigger Internet addresses."
>
> In the late spring of 1992 the IAB issued "IP version 7" [IAB92],
> concurring in the ROAD group's endorsement of CIDR and also
> recommending "an immediate IETF effort to prepare a detailed and
> organizational plan for using CLNP as the basis for IPv7." After
> spirited discussion, the IETF decided to reject the IAB's
> recommendation and issue the call for proposals recommended by the
> ROAD group. This call was issued in July 1992 at the Boston IETF
> meeting and a number of working groups were formed in response.
>
>Needless to say, there was a rather strong reaction to this recommendation.
>
>Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\
Well, actually, none of the above. I'd heard that the QXY was destined to
take full control of the FWZ, but that AXZX had intervened and the CDFT
had also joined in the effort, QXZ was HST PDQ, and then they all ran
out of acronyms and went fishing.
Bill Lovell
