Fwd: draft-ietf-tn3270e-luname-print-02.txt

["Robert G. Moskowitz" <[e-mail]>]

Here is the message I sent to our ADs.

I will take the blame for any complications on the last call designation,
even though I did not specify how I wanted the last call to go, as I should
have.

Since I was unaware of SHARE (it is rare for anyone from Chrysler to go) I
will extend the review call of draft-ietf-tn3270e-enhancements-03.txt until
Mar 2nd.

Bob

-----------------
Forwarded Message

Date: Mon Feb 21, 1994   6:55 AM EST
To: John C Klensin
  EMS: INTERNET / MCI ID: 376-5414
  MBX: [e-mail]
To: Erik Huizer
  EMS: INTERNET / MCI ID: 376-5414
  MBX: [e-mail]
Subject: draft-ietf-tn3270e-luname-print-02.txt
Message-Id:

I've had three vocal objections to this going forward as a proposed
standard.

>I agree with Roger.  I am opposed to RFCE having any status which
>states or implies it is a standard.

The reason for this, I believe as was stated at the wg at Houston is:

This document allows for basic 3287 printing but does not address other
needed functionality.  It is, like RFC1576 on TN3270 Current Practices,
basic services to get started.

It also turns out that I am likely to be a week or two from last call on
draft-ietf-tn3270e-enhancements-0x.txt, so what the wg considers as THE
standard will be ready for overall last call perhaps before the end of
March.  I've asked the group to go over the lastest version of
tn3270e-enhancements for spelling, readablity etc, but this is SHARE week
and many will not be able to review it until next week.

So in conclusion, please reconsider draft-ietf-tn3270e-luname-print-02.txt
as a proposed standard and come up with another designation.  At least
informational, but not experimental.


Bob Moskowitz