Pekka,
While I personally am not directly involved in ATM
development any longer, Marconi develops, builds, sells
and delivers ATM equipment on an on-going basis.
I do not agree that there is anything to gain from
explaining why we do this in an RFC. We do it because we
have customers willing to pay us for doing so.
--
Eric
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas(_at_)netcore(_dot_)fi]
--> Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 8:54 AM
--> To: Brian E Carpenter
--> Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; swallow(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com;
Eric(_dot_)Gray(_at_)Marconi(_dot_)com;
--> iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; John(_dot_)Rutemiller(_at_)Marconi(_dot_)com
--> Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Internet Code Point Assignments'
--> to Proposed
--> Standard
-->
-->
--> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
--> >> Given RFC 4048, is there sufficient evidence that this
--> would be useful to
--> >> the operational (or any other) community ?
--> >
--> > My understanding is that the ATM world needs this.
-->
--> Even the ATM forum has died, having been abandoned by the operators
--> almost 10 years ago. I doubt anyone is developing the technology
--> anymore. V4 and v6 work just fine with ATM SVCs and PVCs as it is.
--> It might be useful to describe (in the draft if this goes
--> forward) why
--> exactly these code point assingments are needed.
-->
--> (Your other editorial suggestions seem OK to me..)
-->
--> --
--> Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
--> Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
--> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
-->
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf