Date:        08 May 2000 13:29:40 -0400
    From:        "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
    Message-ID:  <874s89lzln.fsf@snark.piermont.com>

  | CLNP wasn't inherently awful but it wasn't that great and now it is dead.

CLNP as a protocol is in many ways quite like IP, so obviously isn't
awful .. what is awful is its addressing plan, which is truly atrocious.

That's what killed TUBA - its one big drawcard was that it could leverage
on what CLNP was actually deployed (in existing code bases, if not
actually very much in use).  But to gain that advantage the addressing
plan, and precise (ie: unaligned) packet formats, and its checksum algorithm,
had to go along with it, and all that baggage was simply impractical.

Someone earlier confused TUBA with the (much earlier) IAB pronouncement
on what should follow IPv4, which resulted in a shakeup of the way the
IAB worked, and was appointed.  That was incorrect, TUBA came much later,
and was one of the candidates for the IPv4 replacement (along with PIP,
and SIP, which turned into SIPP, and then IPng).

kre