Re: One last nit

John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net> Fri, 17 March 1995 15:36 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03215; 17 Mar 95 10:36 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03211; 17 Mar 95 10:36 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08348; 17 Mar 95 10:36 EST
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03199; 17 Mar 95 10:36 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03195; 17 Mar 95 10:36 EST
Received: from mail1.Reston.mci.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08337; 17 Mar 95 10:36 EST
Received: from klensin (klensin.Reston.mci.net) by MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.NET (PMDF V4.3-10 #8388) id <01HO8MU5RGZ4000BKG@MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.NET>; Fri, 17 Mar 1995 10:37:18 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 10:36:37 -0500
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net>
Subject: Re: One last nit
X-Sender: klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net
To: Claudio Topolcic <topolcic@bbn.com>
Cc: Claudio Topolcic <topolcic@bbn.com>, iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Message-id: <01HO8MVC1SMW000BKG@MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.NET>
X-Envelope-to: iesg@cnri.reston.va.us
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

>	Well, I guess you are right. I was sort of implicitly assuming
>that the bullshit of the last month or so took the place of the 30 day
>last call. It seems that everything that there was to debate was
>debated. 

I saw several efforts to cut the debate off on whether we really wanted to
do this any more.   And others might have remained silent, feeling that the
immediate procedure was to get Sun to release the technology so that a
decision could be made.

If one were playing protocol lawyer, one might point out that neither 1602
nor ISOC give anyone, Vint included, the right to negotiate Proposed
Standard status as part of a transfer deal.   That is the reason why I
suggested fairly strongly during the first round of these negotiations that
Sun had to be given the right to change their minds if we didn't take action
in some reasonable time -- Dave's initial drafts basically said "we give it
to you, and you make it a standard" and I wasn't happy with the quid pro quo
("thought it could get us in deep soup" would be closer than "not happy").

>But I must agree. If we are to follow procedures, then we
>should follow them. Then this issue is moot to me. Good luck to you.

Proving once again that you are smarter than the rest of us, those who
volunteered to reenlist especially.  :-(

  john