Re: X.500 Survey status

Ruth Lang <rlang@NISC.SRI.COM> Wed, 08 May 1991 15:45 UTC

Received: by merit.edu (5.65/1123-1.0) id AA05200; Wed, 8 May 91 11:45:49 -0400
Received: from ws28.nisc.sri.com by merit.edu (5.65/1123-1.0) id AA05196; Wed, 8 May 91 11:45:47 -0400
Received: by ws28.nisc.sri.com (5.64/SRI-NISC1.1) id AA02510; Wed, 8 May 91 08:45:23 -0700
Message-Id: <9105081545.AA02510@ws28.nisc.sri.com>
To: sturtevant@CCC.NERSC.GOV (Allen Sturtevant - ESnet)
Cc: disi, rlang@NISC.SRI.COM
Subject: Re: X.500 Survey status
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 08 May 91 08:15:13 -0700. <910508081513.21e0872d@CCC.NERSC.GOV>
Date: Wed, 08 May 91 08:45:22 PDT
From: Ruth Lang <rlang@NISC.SRI.COM>

Date:    Wed, 8 May 91 08:15:13 PDT
From: sturtevant@CCC.NERSC.GOV (Allen Sturtevant - ESnet)

> I assume if you never hear from these vendors that you will draft something
> up and try and get their stamp-of-approval on your results.  Of all the
> responses received, the ones mentioned above are the ones that I am most
> interested in seeing.
> 
> Allen

Russ and I understand our role in the creation of this document
as being editors, not authors.  Although we weren't planning to write
descriptions, we may try to directly contact silent companies and 
encourage them to submit.  The editors of the NOC Tools RFC relayed
the fact that when the it was made publically available, that they 
received many "me too" responses.  We hope that this will happen as
well for this RFC.

Ruth


p.s. I had this written when Russ's response arrived in my mailbox,
so forwarded it rather than rewrite it.