Re: comments on the architecture document

[Noel Chiappa <[e-mail]>]

	Yakov:


>>  I don't recall seeing any protocol bugs pointed out in your document.
>
> That should not be viewed as a surprise, given that the protocol specs
> dated March 1992 have NEVER been available to everybody within the WG.
> Since I did not have an opportunity to see the specs it would be a major
> magic if I would be able to find any bugs.

	If you are so concerned about this March 1992 spec business, why
didn't you simply contact Martha to find out what is going on, rather than
jump immediately to pulling all the alarm bells at the IESG? For all you
knew, it was some sort of simple error such as a mistype in the Summary
document, or a failure at the IETF Secretariat to properly install a
document, or something?
	I did in fact try to call Martha, and didn't get her immediately,
but she did call back and say that there is no new draft of the IDPR
specification this year. She thought she remembered one from July 1991,
which is a little later than the latest one in the I-D directory, but the
IETF Secretariat could find no record of this. She did indicate that her
online master had a few minor updates from that old I-D version, but that
they were not significant.
	Exactly why Martha put the March 1992 date on the document listings
in the Summary document (which is where those dates were, not in the official
Last Call from the IESG, which correctly listed the extant versions in the
I-D directory) I don't know; I suspect it was just a placeholder, or perhaps
she meant to indicate "the latest version of the documents in the I-D
directory as of March 1992". Whatever the reason, I don't thinhk resolving
this issue had to involve the IESG.

	As far as the bugs go, you are getting me really confused here. Did
you in fact over the last year *ever* read the earlier version of the spec
(until you read the Summary, the *only* version of the spec you had any
reason to believe existed)? I would assume so, since I hope you read the
spec before the Last Call, if you are fully participating in the WG.
	If so, you apparently did not find any protocol bugs, since I'm
sure you would have been happy to point them out to me if you'd found
any. However, I acknowledge that this is just a supposition on my part;
did you in fact find any bugs in the protocol?

	Noel