Re: IP Security......

"Jeffrey I. Schiller" <jis@mit.edu> Tue, 21 March 1995 03:31 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19920; 20 Mar 95 22:31 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19916; 20 Mar 95 22:31 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa28341; 20 Mar 95 22:31 EST
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19908; 20 Mar 95 22:31 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19904; 20 Mar 95 22:31 EST
Received: from BIG-SCREW.MIT.EDU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa28336; 20 Mar 95 22:31 EST
Received: by big-screw id AA04197; Mon, 20 Mar 95 22:31:03 -0500
Message-Id: <ab93f8770002100435d2@[18.72.0.238]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 22:31:41 -0500
To: John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net>
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "Jeffrey I. Schiller" <jis@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: IP Security......
Cc: pvm@isi.edu, Mike O'Dell <mo@uunet.uu.net>, sob@harvard.edu, iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US

Btw. I spoke with Jeff Treuhaft from Netscape this evening. I explained
that it would be much more appropriate for Netscape to withdraw the
informational RFC and to instead submit the document as an Internet Draft.
Jeff was pretty emphatic about how they (Netscape) wish to play by the
rules of the IETF. I explained (again) that if that is the case... then the
document should go to Internet Drafts.

We'll see.

                        -Jeff