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 95 14:44:46 PST
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