Jim Barnes: TMux status again
Allison Mankin <mankin@isi.edu> Mon, 27 March 1995 22:44 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13976; 27 Mar 95 17:44 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13972; 27 Mar 95 17:44 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20570; 27 Mar 95 17:44 EST
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13963; 27 Mar 95 17:44 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13959; 27 Mar 95 17:44 EST
Received: from zephyr.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20565; 27 Mar 95 17:44 EST
Received: from zephyr.isi.edu by zephyr.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-17) id <AA28577>; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 14:44:47 -0800
Message-Id: <199503272244.AA28577@zephyr.isi.edu>
To: rfc-editor@isi.edu
Cc: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: Jim Barnes: TMux status again
Reply-To: mankin@isi.edu
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 14:44:46 -0800
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Allison Mankin <mankin@isi.edu>
He's right. And this matters a good deal to some IETF members. Can you reissue RFC1780? Allison ------- Forwarded Message Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 17:19:02 -0500 From: barnes@xylogics.com (Jim Barnes) To: mankin@ISI.EDU cc: rfc-editor@ISI.EDU Subject: TMux status again Allison, Hi. I hate to keep bothering you about this, but the TMux Protocol (RFC 1692) is still listed as an informational protocol in the latest version of the Internet Standards document (RFC 1780). I believe that TMux should be listed as an Elective protocol in the Proposed Standard classification. Jim Barnes (barnes@xylogics.com) ------- End of Forwarded Message
- Jim Barnes: TMux status again Allison Mankin