Subject: Re: How many standards or protocols...

From: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:48:03 -0400

>IS-IS as deployed on the Internet is an interesting case.  It is clearly 
>open and is not proprietary, but as you point out there is no complete 
>specification.   I don't think we have a term for this combination :-)

Yes, we do: "proprietary".  It's a jargon term for standards development; 
looking in a standard English dictionary won't help.  It just means "not 
open".

/===============================================================\
|John Stracke                    |Principal Engineer            |
[email-masked]   |Incentive Systems, Inc.       |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own.       |
|===============================================================|
|Dave Barry for President! He'll Keep Dan Quayle. (OK, it's old)|
\===============================================================/

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:12:37 -0400

> looking in a standard English dictionary won't help.  It just means "not 

No, the problem with IS-IS is that the spec *IS* 100% open, including the
non-existent parts.  As a literary  analogy, if Don Knuth were to place his
5-volume set into the public domain, you'd still have a hard time implementing
the algorithms in volume 5....

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 12:32:01 +0900

> No, the problem with IS-IS is that the spec *IS* 100% open, including
> the non-existent parts.

that's why so few folk run it.  only the vast majority of the largest
providers.  running code.

randy