Subject: RE: IPORPR Framework Document

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 08:51:18 -0400

At 19:45 18/07/01, Raj Sharma wrote:
>I am reposting my original email to the general reflector that
>sent a month ago to Albert and the other authors who started 
>reviewing the framework document.
>
>I think the IPORPR WG is very speculative and premature
>at this stage. My suggestion below was to reduce the 
>document to a one page document - in essence it makes
>sense NOT to have such a draft since what is leftover
>is of little or no value to anyone. 

        Fully agree.  The current document doesn't really
make sense given the state of 802.17.  I'm not sure that
its useful in a broader context either, but certainly it
is not useful right now.  The in-person feedback at the last 
IETF meeting on changing the "Framework" document to reduce
content/size/etc also seems to have been largely ignored
by the authors and one of the chairs.

In essence, specifying IP/802.17 (which is our notional objective)
has roughly two technical  components:
        1) SNMP MIB for 802.17 interfaces
        2) Specification of framing-style/IP MTU for IP/802.17,
                but only if existing Ethernet EtherType framing
                and existing Ethernet MTU aren't the same.  My
                understanding is that 802.17 plans to be Ethernet
                compatible, so this item probably won't be needed.
                If 802.17 requires 802-style encapsulation rather
                than EtherType-style, then the IP/FDDI spec should
                probably be our model here.

Ran
[email-masked]