I'm not in a campaign to promote ECN, or anything... I'm saying that ISOC web site is not reachable if you enable ECN, which RFC793(standard) or RFC3168(proposed Standard) talk about. I don't want to talk about what is a standard or what is not... What is compliant or not... Will there be anybody to volunteer and fix the routers leading to ISOC web site, mailing lists, e-mail addresses and so on? This is what my message is all about. Please IETF members in Washington DC, Area, please give a call to ISOC and offer some help... This is embarrassing, that's all.... Cheers. Franck Martin Network and Database Development Officer SOPAC South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission Fiji E-mail: franck@sopac.org <mailto:franck@sopac.org> Web site: http://www.sopac.org/ <http://www.sopac.org/> Support FMaps: http://fmaps.sourceforge.net/ <http://fmaps.sourceforge.net/> Certificate: https://www.sopac.org/ssl/ This e-mail is intended for its addresses only. Do not forward this e-mail without approval. The views expressed in this e-mail may not be necessarily the views of SOPAC. -----Original Message----- From: Gary E. Miller [mailto:gem@rellim.com] Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2002 3:02 To: Christian Huitema Cc: ietf Subject: RE: ECN and ISOC: request for help... Yo Christian! Actually, RFC 3168 has nothing to do with it. The issue is RFC 793. RFC 793 is a "Standard", not a "Proposed Standard" RFC 793 lists the bits later used by ECN as "Reserved". Computer programs are supposed to ignore "Reserved" bits unless they really know what they are doing. If a router treats bits in the header as required by the STANDARD RFC 793 then RFC 3168 will cause no harm. I do not have a copy of Baker handy, but I bet it agrees. RGDS GARY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 gem@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676 On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Christian Huitema wrote: > So, if you are on a campaign to promote ECN, then maybe you should first > try to promote this specification to the next standard level... You may > also want to take a stab at revising the "Requirements for IP Version 4 > Routers"; the last edition, RFC 1812 by Fred Baker, dates from June > 1995.