callon@bigfut.enet.dec.com (02-Jul-1990 1648) (07/03/90)
Regarding the list of subjects to be discussed in this new group: > > 1. Many deficiencies on GOSIP v.2 > I think that any deficiencies in GOSIP version 2.0 would be of interest either to the full IETF-OSI mailing list, or to specific mailing lists (such as the NSAP or X.400 mailing lists). > > 2. Internet NSAP address format (from RFC 1069) with the GOSIP NSAP > address format, version 2. > This subject has already been taken up by the IETF NSAP working group mailing list. The IETF NSAP working group (particularly Richard Coella and I) are putting out a new RFC to supercede RFC 1069 which essentially says "forget RFC 1069, use GOSIP Version 2.0 format (as will be in the final text of GOSIP version 2.0, for release soon). [Editor's note: This will exclude the CO/CL bit in the NSAP, which I understand will be dropped from the final text of GOSIP version 2.0, in accordance with the IETF OSI WG comment and other comments). > >4. Review of the OSI protocol mechanisms proposed for the Berkeley release 4.4. > >5. What routing should be used short term for (i) intra-domain routing; > and (ii) inter-domain routing? > >6. Encapsulation/routing/network management of CLNP inside IP. > >7. Interoperability strategies between OSI end systems and TCP/IP endsystems. > >8. Echo function for CLNP (ISO 8473) > >9. ISODE 6.0, and many many issues for migration. > Ditto. All of these are subjects of interest to the OSI area of the IETF. Clearly the IETF does not have a monopoly on any of these issues. However, there is a lot of advantage in having the discussion coordinated. Also, we would be very interested in having additional folks to actually do work and come up with good ideas in these areas. If there is to be another mailing list to discuss these same subjects, then it would be very useful if someone knowledgeable would find the time to summarize discussions on each list to the other list. An alternative would be to add the additional members to the IETF mailing lists and have the discussion in one place. It would be a pity to have resources wasted on duplicate effort. Ross