Re: IDPR as a Proposed Standard

[Noel Chiappa <[e-mail]>]

	Yakov, to the best of my recollection, the intent of the text that you
quote from RFC1310 was that the final drafts be available during the Last Call
period, before final IESG action. I agree, it would be nice to have them all
out well before, but that is not always possible. Changes often go on up
to the last minute, people are busy with work, etc, etc. Believe me, there
have been many cases where things showed up at the last minute!

	As to how long the various drafts have been around, I got the
impression from your message that the Architecture document had only recently
appeared. This confused me, since I thought I recalled seeing this some time
ago. I found the following in my file system:

  65 -rw-r-----  1 jnc         65965 Jul 25  1991 /u/jnc/docs/idpr_arch.id

I don't know where I got it, but the .id ending seems to indicate it's an I-D.
True, the *latest* version may have only gone up recently, but the basic
document has been around for a while. I reviewed the table of contents of this
and the latest version, and they appear very similar (although the latest
version has more comparitive material with DV algorithms). (The new version
is about 7K characters longer.)
	I can't speak to the manner in which it was prepared, though, and
would like to see a reply on this issue.

	You are correct that the only version of the IDPR spec available on
NNSC.NSF.NET is the March, 1991 version. I have no idea whether there is a
later version, which was not installed (either through error, or
administrative oversight), or whether that is the latest version, and the
formulation in the proposal was not clear and mislead people into thinking
there was a March, 1992 version.
	Can someone provide some more details?

	I fail to see that the fact that several WG members do not agree with
the actions taken means much. In every WG, there are one or more members who
do not agree with actions taken by the WG. This does not invalidate the
decisions of the WG. How is this case any different?  Do a majority of the WG
members who were actually involved in the development of the protocol disagree
with these actions? If we are to discard the results of any WG which has a few
members who do not agree with those results, we might as well fold up shop and
go home.


	Needless to say, these opinions are mine only, and do not represent
anyone else's.


	Noel