Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!tcp-ip
From: JNC@MIT-XX.ARPA ("J. Noel Chiappa")
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  Wollongoing subnet support (sic)
Message-ID: <12175030132.45.JNC@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 13-Jan-86 20:17:59 EST
Article-I.D.: XX.12175030132.45.JNC
Posted: Mon Jan 13 20:17:59 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 14-Jan-86 04:35:03 EST
References: <8601140024.AA04700@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 18
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa


	I just finally managed to get a hold of someone at the VP
level. He was fairly helpful, but apparently nothing will come out of
the pipe quickly, unless enough customers ask loudly enough. He had
never even heard of the subnet spec, and I had to give him the RFC
numbers. Apparently part of the problem is that there isn't a good
path to get info about changes like this to companies if they aren't
on the Internet. Perhaps a path exists for getting the existing RFC
announcements into a UUCP group, e.g. net.rfcs? That would help these
people. (Also, the subnet stuff is only marked 'recommended' rather
than 'required' both on RFC950 (the subnet spec) and in the Official
IP Protocols list (RFC961). This seems like a poor idea since if a single
implementation at a site is missing it it can be difficult to turn
on subnetting. It's harder to beat on companies to add something if it's
not marked 'required', too..)

	Noel
-------