Subject: Re: two meetings at IETF

From: [email-masked] (Frank Kastenholz)
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 15:46:38 EST

>* 4:00-6:00 PM Special Meeting on IPNG Requirements
>
>    I've got a strong statement from the IPng directorate that if those of
>    us thinking about support for integrated services want to have any input
>    into the IPng process, we need to express our requirements very very soon.
>    So the purpose of this meeting is to see if there are any very specific
>    needs we have from IPng.  (A good example is the question of whether we
>    need the header to have a flow id?).  This meeting may run over.

While this is a needed and interesting exercise, and I certainly
understand the IPng directorate's time constraints, is it realistic
to, at this early a point in the life of the wg, be able to make
specific requirements of IPng?

--
Frank Kastenholz
FTP Software
2 High Street
North Andover, Mass. USA 01845
(508)685-4000

---

From: Craig Partridge <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 13:07:54 -0800

Frank:
    
    One of the purposes of the meeting is to find this out.  And I mean
by having people talk through the ideas and see if they seem mature enough
to make recommendations.

    For instance, several folks think that a concensus has developed that
there needs to be a flow id.  If that's true, it ought to be put into the
IPng hopper.  But the only way to find out is to have the meeting and let
people talk the issues through.

    It is also my job (and those of my co-chairs) over the next month
to try to shake out various perspectives so we've got a good mix of ideas
in the room.

Craig