Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] More vendor data on IP/GigE MTU

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 16:09:41 -0600

[]
To: [email-masked]
From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:13:32 -0400

[...]
        As I noted at the outset, an Informational RFC is totally
non-binding (and the content of standards-track RFCs are pretty 
frequently ignored as well), so I don't see why you are getting
spun up.  
[...]

Then:

[]
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:48:38 -0400
To: [email-masked]
From: Ran Atkinson <[email-masked]>

[...]
	Because all IS-IS WG documents are published as Informational 
RFCs (because ISO is the standards-body for IS-IS), many folks treat 
Informational RFCs from the IS-IS WG as carrying equal weight
as a standards-track document.  While it might not precisely *be*
a standards-tack document, this tends to be the reality of output
from that particular WG.
[...]

Quite the change of heart...

However, I'm not sure I agree with your second assessment 
Of course, most folks outside the IETF seem to place little 
emphasis on the "track", regardless of what WG a given 
document is a product of.  Then again, we're not outside the 
IETF.

I recall the initial reasoning for the "Extended Ethernet 
Frame Size Support" draft being a product of the ISIS WG,
but I believe now that it should probably fall into an area
that would get it more exposure and feedback.

-danny

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list  -  [email-masked]
http://external.juniper.net/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:28:57 -0400

>Quite the change of heart...

Customer input is a very good way, probably the most effective way, 
to help me change my mind.  That happened in this case.

Ran