Re: IDPR as a Proposed Standard

vcerf@nri.reston.va.us Sat, 18 April 1992 00:01 UTC

Received: from nri.nri.reston.va.us by ietf.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02737; 17 Apr 92 20:01 EDT
Received: from nri.reston.va.us by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15516; 17 Apr 92 20:04 EDT
Received: from PARK-STREET.BBN.COM by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15510; 17 Apr 92 20:04 EDT
Received: from park-street by PARK-STREET.bbn.COM id aa19619; 17 Apr 92 19:49 EDT
Received: from BBN.COM by PARK-STREET.BBN.COM id aa19615; 17 Apr 92 19:48 EDT
Received: from NRI.RESTON.VA.US by BBN.COM id aa15338; 17 Apr 92 19:51 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14510; 17 Apr 92 19:43 EDT
To: yakov@watson.ibm.com
cc: iab@isi.edu, iesg@nri.reston.va.us, idpr-wg@bbn.com, jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: IDPR as a Proposed Standard
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 16 Apr 92 14:23:17 EDT." <199204161826.AA14324@venera.isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 19:42:58 -0400
From: vcerf@nri.reston.va.us
Message-ID: <9204171943.aa14510@NRI.Reston.VA.US>

Yakov,

I am reading a pile of email in reverse chronological order,
so your message probably follows many I haven't yet read.
I just thought i would toss my two cents in on IDPR - 
it seems to me that one needs to consider any proposal
for advancement on the standards track by its merits -
past history aside (excepting, of course, any concerns that
might be raised about due process to avoid anti-trust
complaints or related issues of that sort). 

In the case of IDPR, I would need some time for serious
study and probably some exchanges with the designers before
I would feel comfortable forming an opinion about its
readiness for standards track entry. 

Vint