[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SVr4 mail and RFC-XXXX

1991-05-29 14:15:42
I responded directly to Stef's email referenced above.  He answered:
Thanks Brain for your thoughtful comments.  Perhaps you would like to
make them public to the list.  When (if) I overstep, I should be
corrected, in public so that my errors will not be allowed to stick.

I am taking Stef's suggestion.  The original message follows.  (Note that 
many people can't resist spelling my name Brain;-)

Send-date:   Tuesday, May 28, 1991 at 17:08 PDT
From:        Brian Wideen
To:          Stef
Subject:     Re: SVr4 mail and RFC-XXXX 


Though I have not participated actively, I have monitored the discussion
surrounding RFC-XXXX because the issues are important and many of the
principles transcend the RFC.  

So, like you, I was surprised by Tony Hansen's (ATT) message because 
it does not seem to be refering to the draft RFC.  But I am equally 
surprised by your response which seems as much an indictment of vendor 
solutions as it is of Mr. Hansen's cursory reading of the RFC.

The Yet-Another-Vendor-Doing-Its-Own-Thing label, though convenient, doesn't
fit here.  ATT has already solved a couple of the problems that RFC-XXXX 
addresses.  This is not YAVDIOT, this is a vendor meeting client needs in 
the absense of any clear standard.  ATT and other vendors now face having 
to implement a second solution to the same problem, while continuing to 
support their original solution.  You don't have to sympathize with ATT,
but remember this impacts ATT clients also.

Obviously, RFC-XXXX will be an improvement over current solutions, as it 
represents a general answer to a wider range of questions.  This, plus 
its "standard" quality, will ultimately motivate vendors such as ATT 
to adopt the RFC.  However, I would hope that some alternatives weren't
ignored simply because of the source.

I am not used to defending hardware vendors, but vendor-bashing too often
distracts discussion from otherwise important issues.

Apologizing for introducing distractions of my own..

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>