[c-nsp] 12.2SXF?

[lists at hojmark.org]

>> Now, if only the C4K people would do the same thing...

> Now, they had to change because at the time there was no 
> release beyond 12.2(20)S for them to sync with and introduce
> their new features.

And now when there's 12.2(25)S, they've done 12.2(25)SG based
on that? Will they also use the trailing, third letter for their
new features from now on (SGA -> SGB -> SGC)? And the rebuild
number after the letters (SGA1 -> SGA2 -> SGA3)?

> Unfortunately, all of the variations created out of necessity
> are very confusing and a fundamental rethinking is needed to
> create a consistent release naming/numbering methodology that
> can balance both stability/maintenance needs and feature
> velocity needs simultaneously and consistently across all
> platforms.

A few years ago (well, actually many years in this business[1])
there was talk about bringing modularity and hardware-
independance to IOS, i.e. load the drivers that you need for you
current hardware and the 'feature modules' (like ISIS), that you
require.

Then nothing happened. 

... Well, actually it got worse because code was shipped for the
hardware-forwarding platforms, where there was tons of hardware-
dependant features and restrictions. Today it's pretty hard to
keep track of releases if you have more than a single platform.

> As you can guess, no small undertaking....

IMO, modularity is the only way to go.
IOS XR?

-A
[1] I think I first heard about it at Networkers in Monaco in 95.