Brian,
Without really thinking about it, and with my OSI knowledge having
ten years' rust on it, it seems to me that port numbers belong in
the TSAP address, not the NSAP address. But since I have no idea
why anyone would care, I'd prefer that we simply downgrade the
RFC and forget about. Could I a
All,
In order to save time in San Diego, the chairs have once
again posted the current document status on the web. We ask
that WG members review the status and bring up any issues on
the mailing list.
http://www.innovationslab.net/~brian/IETF60/IPv6/IPv6DocumentStatus.html
Regards,
Brian & Bo
Although I agree that this should be downgraded to historical status, I
would not count on the ATM Forum doing anything with it any time soon as
last week there was an announcement of the planned merger of the ATM Forum
with the MPLS and Frame Relay Alliance.
It seems to me that the new combined o
Brian,
As one co-chair, I would support the effort to move RFC 1888
to Historic. I would also encourage Arun and anyone from the ATM
Forum who is interested in IPv6 addresses in NSAP to submit a draft
on the issue. If there is interest from the WG, I would support
that work being done here.
Arun,
1888 is an Experimental RFC that contains health warnings that it
won't work, and as far as I know nobody has ever attempted to
implement it. There also is some interest in the ATM Forum in the
mapping of IP addresses inside NSAP addresses, but that is another
story.
My opinion as the main au
