Subject: Re: Going forward

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 18:48:15 -0700

At 1:45 PM -0700 6/11/97, [email-masked] wrote:
>I also believe that it is unnecessary and unreasonable to hold
>up the RSVP specs until the int-serv specs are also ready.  We
>went to considerable trouble to decouple these two working groups,
>and tieing them together at the end seems to be a bad idea.

One question (just a question) - what is the holdup on the integrated
services documents? What is the reason that they are perceived as being
unfit for release?

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Today's vocabulary enhancement:
	"yuppie food coupons" = twenty dollar bills from an ATM

---

From: Craig Partridge <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 97 20:04:09 -0700

Scott noted that some lacked security sections.  I believe the only significant
one which really needed a Security Section was Controlled Load, and unless
I'm mistaken, that was fixed a couple of weeks ago.  (The others just
need pro-forma sections saying "Security isn't relevant" -- I'm not sure
how many of those have been fixed).

Craig

e router to router, router to switch ,
switch to router, switch to switch, the same or different feedback
depending on router
or switch? would all switches provide this feedback? what about a case
in which a non-congested switch that drops a packet is down stream from
the congested switch that dropped a cell? Would you be more specific?
 
	....
> Dimitry
	Thanks,
Alex

---------------------------------------------
Alex Conta     [email-masked]     Tel: 508/287-9000/ext 2842    Fax:
508/287-2810 
Lucent Technologies, Inc.   300 Baker Ave., Concord, MA 01742

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 21:44:47 -0700

>how many of those have been fixed).

so they're all set to go forward at this point? Scott's not waiting on
anything?