RE: CMC Comments?

["Phillip M Hallam-Baker" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>I would make an analogy to the modem world, where two functionally
>similar protocols were candidates for standardization.  X2 and Flex
>both provide 56K connections, but are not interoperable.  International
>Standard V.90 also provides a 56K connection, but is not interoperable
>with either of the earlier protocols.  Modem vendors and ISP equipment
>vendors are free to include 1, 2, or all 3 of the protocols in their
>equipment, as dictated by cost and market considerations.  However,
>the V.90 standard DOES NOT require support for either X2 or Flex as
>a condition of conformance.

The modem people did provide backwards compatibility in effect, if
the modems could not agree at 56K they would back off to the previously
agreed 28.8K standard. 

>That is real Standardization.  There was big money at stake, but the
>competing participants still managed to agree on a single standard.

That is ISO model standardization, not IETF model standardization.
Remember the mantra:

	'There will be NO flag days'

Backwards compatibility is what the INTER-net is all about. When you 
have an installed base of 100 million odd clients you make sure that
the standards proposed support them wherever possible.

It does not seem unreasonable to want use the term 'CMC compatible' 
as a synonym for 'works with the stuff you bought already'. 


		Phill