Subject: Re: Ignore ARP requests from remote buses

From: "Hattig, Myron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 14:27:14 -0700

One more point to better understand is how, within the IETF process, can the
IP/1394
spec change to accommodate 1394 bridges. My understanding is we simply write
another
draft. If the current draft is an RFC and the newer draft becomes an RFC,
the newer
obsoletes the older. Inevitably the newer draft must address backwards
compatibility
issues.

I'm hoping the more experience IETF WG members expand on these statements.

Thanks,

-myron

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 15:42:42 -0700

> I'm hoping the more experience IETF WG members expand on these statements.

Not sure there's too much more to say.  Obviously, we should attempt to do
a reasonable job with the first RFC.  However, trying to support things
that are not yet well defined or that are research topics is clearly beyond
what we need to deliver.

As Myron notes, revising the RFC is not a real big deal from a process
perspective.

Add to this, that there is considerable time pressure to get something
going on 1394.  Given the relatively low level of 1394 deployment so far,
it would seem beneficial to have a spec solidified so that folks can ship
product.  I'll go out on a limb and suggest that IP over 1394 is likely to
be a very large, if not the largest, application over 1394 systems.

Thus, if we delay too long, we'll find that 1394 has no market share.

Tony