Re: Question on RFC1577.

[Craig Partridge <[e-mail]>]

    > This is why I've been asking these questions.  I am concerned about the 
    > interoperability of our implementation with others based on some postings
    > I've seen.  Our goal is to have a completely interoperable implementation
    > and I want to make sure we're interpreting things the way other implement
   ors
    > are.  I agree that interoperability is the most important thing we have t
   o
    > achieve here.

    I'm afraid that we're not seeing responses from the implementers here.
    NRL, Xerox PARC, BBN et al. are all missing from this converstation.
    A few people are doing a very good job of keeping this discussion
    going.  I'd really like to hear comments from the other implementers
    before drawing any conclusions.

Mark:

    The reason you haven't seen anything from me is a mix of travel and
the fact that Grenville's being doing a very good job of summarizing
my approach (thanks Grenville!).

    Personally I've found the exchange very useful (though long) -- some
hard little issues have popped out that worry me.  (But I want to write
some more code and reread the nodes before I shout).

    Like everyone else, my goal is to ensure interoperability across a
number of different platforms which may have different design goals.

Thanks!

Craig