IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Proposed Standard

Peter DiCamillo <CMSMAINT%BROWNVM.bitnet@list.nih.gov> Mon, 21 February 1994 05:42 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa26952; 21 Feb 94 0:42 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa26948; 21 Feb 94 0:42 EST
Received: from list.nih.gov by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04197; 21 Feb 94 0:42 EST
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2186; Mon, 21 Feb 94 00:39:13 EST
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id 2184; Mon, 21 Feb 94 00:35:36 EST
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 00:31:02 -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: Peter DiCamillo <CMSMAINT%BROWNVM.bitnet@list.nih.gov>
Subject: Re: Proposed Standard
To: Multiple recipients of list TN3270E <TN3270E@list.nih.gov>
In-Reply-To: Your mail of Mon 21 Feb 1994 00:24:53
Message-ID: <9402210042.aa04197@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>

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

Peter

v2.34.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status