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!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ucbvax!GW.UMICH.EDU!hwb
From: hwb@GW.UMICH.EDU
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: RFC986 questions
Message-ID: <8606121452.AA12800@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Thu, 12-Jun-86 10:53:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8606121452.AA12800
Posted: Thu Jun 12 10:53:53 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Jun-86 00:43:59 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 9
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa

I think we are really talking about the same thing (utilizing the same link
layer). Please re-read my previous message. The issue here is *routing*
and not so much how protocols get used. The need for application gateways
for the interim is definitely implied in here.
 
	-- Hans-Werner
 
PS: NBS and ISO folks (among others) reviewed the RFC986 before it got published.
-------