[Top] [All Lists]

Re: NETF and EUnet on mnemonic

1991-11-11 07:54:07
As much as I sympathize with the desire to have some standardization of
the mnemonic form, the fact still remains that the XXXX document deals
with message content, not message header.
However, I categorically refuse to
allow XXXX to be held up by arguments about things dealing with message

My advice is that you coordinate with the chair to produce an updated
stand-alone document for mnemonic that can be circulated immediately,

Marshall and David,
  In fairness to Keld (and probably a few others), you should note that 
the chair pushed very strongly last spring and summer for an integrated
"fix 822 and add new stuff" document.  I was told to try to fold the
extensions to trace fields that is now in ZZZZ into XXXX and I certainly 
saw things go by that would encourage Keld and others to believe that 
their material belonged in XXXX.
  There was one specific reason for this thrust, which was a concern (on 
the part of the chair as well as others) that a single package (i.e., 
one RFC) would probably be implemented, but, if there was a collection 
of RFCs from which people could pick and choose, we might end up with 
enough perceived options to interfere with practical interoperability.
  Now all of that may be misperceptions, or ideas that have been 
overcome by circumstances, or strategies about which we have (or should 
have) collectively changed our minds.
  But given earlier apparent directions of the WG and guidance from the
chair, the "get off my boat, go find your own boat" model and 
"categorical refusal"--both of which seem to assume that something is 
being smuggled in here--are, IMHO, a little excessive.

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