Subject: (ION) draft-ietf=ion-multiprotocol-03.txt

From: Dan Grossman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 14:30:11 -0400

All,
I just sent the latest draft of the RFC 1483 update to the I-D editor.  I did 
take into account some of the comments received, as follows (as far as I can 
recollect):

1) the SNAP ID for VPNs has been assigned by IANA and is now in the draft
2) Bert Manfredi's comment concerning MAC address bit order:  I added words to 
the effect that the bit order of the MAC address in the BPDU is the same as it 
would be on the LAN, e.g. canonical for ethernet, 802.5/FDDI for 802.5
3) At Thomas Narten's suggestion, added words to the effect that this memo 
updates RFC 1483.
4) Ditto, "This" has no antecedent, replaced "This" with "RFC 2427".
5) Ditto, in security considerations, reworded warning about security of 
bridged LANs to "has same vulnerabilities as other bridging architectures".

I did not understand Bert's first comment, and think that it is probably an 
ATM Forum issue rather than an issue for this draft.

WRT Thomas' other comments, there is a formal reference to IEEE earlier in the 
section.  It would be nice to have a list of changes from RFC 1483, and if 
Thomas wishes to provide one, I'd be happy to add it.

Sorry about the delay on this, folks -- my day job has been taking big gulps 
of my time.

Andy, unless there are further issues, I'd like to ask you to ask the IESG for 
an IETF last call.

rgds
Dan

- --LAA26924.928347853/engmail4.Eng.Sun.COM--

------- End of Forwarded Message

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

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 15:45:39 -0400

Dan,

> It would be nice to have a list of changes from RFC 1483, and if

I am not in a position to provide one. However, it is a general
requirement from the IESG that you provide such a list of differences
(see http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/ID-nits.html). The goal is to
aid implementors that have already implemented the previous RFC and
want a quick list of the differences. You don't need to list the minor
editorial changes. Rule of thumb: if an implementor would want to
know, it ought to be mentioned.

Thomas