Not only do we read them, we write them. In fact half of the listed
authors for RFC 1717 work for Livingston. Livingston has always been
active in developing new technology.
>---- To say that the PM3 complies to RFC 1717, but only for ISDN is to say
>that it's NOT RFC 1717 compliant at all!!! It is more correct to say that
>it complies with the portion of RFC 1717 dealing with synchronous ports.
Actually, we are complient. The idea behind RFC 1717 is to provide a
standard for the operation of splitting packets, sending them down multiple
data links, and putting them together. To say we are complient means that
we implement all the "must"'s, "shall"'s and "Mandatory"'s in the document.
All RFC's (at least the well written ones) will provide options and good
ideas to improve the implementation and so does RFC 1717.
>---- To say that the PM3 complies to RFC 1717, but only for ISDN is to say
>that it's NOT RFC 1717 compliant at all!!! It is more correct to say that
>it complies with the portion of RFC 1717 dealing with synchronous ports.
>From reading the RFC I have not identified a sync portion or an async portion.
To be complient we don't 'have' to apply multilink on various types of data
links, though we plan to. One step at a time.
>(by the way,
>at least two techs at Livingston, upon direct inquiry on the subject, still
>maintain that it is RFC 1717 compliant).
Three.
>So, Livingston, please stop saying that the PM3 and PM2E are compliant with
>RFC 1717 until they are. Luckily, some day, the PM3 will actually live up
>to RFC 1717. On the other hand, the PM2E won't ever be compliant due to
>overwhelming hardware issues involved with its buffers.
?hardware issues involved with its buffers?
Huh?
--- jstorms@livingston.com Diplomacy: The art of saying good doggie while seaching for a big rock.