IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Proposed Standard

fab@fab.md.interlink.com Wed, 23 February 1994 17:36 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07948; 23 Feb 94 12:36 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07944; 23 Feb 94 12:36 EST
Received: from list.nih.gov by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13849; 23 Feb 94 12:36 EST
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8401; Wed, 23 Feb 94 12:33:29 EST
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id 8400; Wed, 23 Feb 94 12:02:57 EST
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 12:04:43 -0500
Reply-To: IETF TN3270E Working Group List <TN3270E@list.nih.gov>
X-Orig-Sender: IETF TN3270E Working Group List <TN3270E@list.nih.gov>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: fab@fab.md.interlink.com
Subject: Re: Proposed Standard
X-To: TN3270E@LIST.NIH.GOV
To: Multiple recipients of list TN3270E <TN3270E@list.nih.gov>
Message-ID: <9402231236.aa13849@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>

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

Me too!

Fred

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status