Re: Last Call: draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update (IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Protocol Field) to BCP

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Last Call: draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update (IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Protocol Field) to BCP

To: "Bernard Aboba" <aboba at internaut.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update (IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Protocol Field) to BCP
From: "Bill Fenner" <fenner at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 17:21:39 -0800
Cc: ietf at ietf.org
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=Ig79g74r56T9YYUbI4RqR7KAtyRCrhsdTdvDLFoqcBA=; b=cwU193MyUgy8QY4y94ZwWfh79SAuMxqvLTbMfqwipKRuhyJbe4fRTwN6SCsBFTZzfoPcJjQUI1ryPkNpUvumw6pQhsKkSWNAbjy4X/Ty34i+QZKOEW8ZeLKzyEwW2z5i/aL+K5Vi45SUjfUZ4P3ymIZpSDFHrQgek8DHAm1pW2A=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=CeFuoqp3nGqJ3q2Z9fHtPshUkKBsunuvl6oBHAyUAq3fYG6lwOuytBZl+GtrTI4x5FqOr5fkkawU3YZX7TpofU7BTMLBAWD9An6Z5QAeFek/uhSyPqMC+rgBpjp24aTo9mYtMMabQqh3zB51011T2GbqPLoY4flCxSrKWzEE3N8=
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711071120410.27519@internaut.com>
List-help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711071120410.27519@internaut.com>

On 11/7/07, Bernard Aboba <aboba at internaut.com> wrote:
> Here is a different take on what happened:

...

There are all sorts of takes on what happened.  What I was told at the
time was that the CARP developers picked protocol 112 specifically to
interfere with VRRP, to get back at the IETF for not accepting their
anti-patent position and to show the IETF how irrelevant they were.
My impression was always that the various other stories were
fabricated to cover up that decision.

  Bill

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Last Call: draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update (IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Protocol Field) to BCP
  - From: Jari Arkko

References:
- Re: Last Call: draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update (IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Protocol Field) to BCP
  - From: Bernard Aboba

Prev by Date: Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Re: I-DAction:draft-saintandre-header-pres-00.txt
Next by Date: Hotels in YVR
Previous by thread: Re: Last Call: draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update (IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Protocol Field) to BCP
Next by thread: Re: Last Call: draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update (IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Protocol Field) to BCP
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: Last Call: draft-arkko-rfc2780-proto-update (IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Protocol Field) to BCP

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.