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
Einar
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..
..brian