Subject: (ION) re: RFC 1483 to Draft

From: "Ken Hayward" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 14:12:40 -0400

Is this the phase when unimplemented features get taken out? If so, it may
well be worthwhile to put out an early call for interoperability experience
by feature, to minimize editing passes.

Also, I note you're planning to add another. I support this. But I hope that
the progression rules are such that we don't have to show sets of single
interoperable implementations that utilise all features, but rather that
each feature has a (potentially different) set of interoperable
implementations. Andy, is that your understanding?

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Dan Grossman [SMTP:[email-masked]]
	Sent:	Wednesday, June 24, 1998 11:52 AM
	To:	[email-masked]
	Subject:	(ION) RFC 1483 to Draft

	All,
	Andy and I had a brief email discussion concerning the fact that
multiprotocol 
	encapsulation over AAL5 is overdue to get progressed to Draft. 

	Here's my list of minor tweaks:

	<snip>
	2) A special case of VC multiplexing is used when PPP encapsulation
is used 
	over ATM (as in many ADSL implementations).  This case should be
explicitly 
	called out in the draft.
	<snip>

X-Info: To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
X-Info: 'unsubscribe ion' in the body of the message.