proposed standard

[[e-mail]]

Hello everyone,

I have just resurfaced after a week's hiatus, and I see that there has
been a LOT of discussion on the IDPR mailing list.  I apologize for
the negligence; my lack of response was not because I didn't care
to answer, but rather because I had to deal with things that my
company considered to be of higher priority at the time.

The first order of business is the case of the by now infamous March
1992 version of the IDPR protocol specification, which I seemed to
have screwed up rather completely.  At the time I first wrote the IDPR
summary document, I expected to have the March 1992 version ready for
the drafts directory.  I also assumed that if I did not submit the
updated draft before the public announcement of the proposed standard
request, that the decision would be based on the latest version of the
protocol specification in the internet-drafts directory.

Under the impression that the drafts version was summer 1991 (July or
August), I was as surprised as anyone to find out that the directory
contained only the February 1991 version.  Whether I dreamt that I
submitted a July version to the drafts directory or whether the
submission slipped through the cracks I don't know.  However, as I am
ultimately responsible for what version goes into the drafts
directory, I should have been aware of what was actually there.  I am
sorry for all of the confusion this caused.

A true March 1992 version has been submitted to the drafts directory
and Woody has one of these in the pub/idpr direction on cseic.saic.com.
I think that the file is prot.ps (Woody?), available for anonymous ftp.

As to the differences in drafts of the IDPR protocol specifications,
the basic protocols have changed very little since April 1990.
However, the descriptions have changed over time, mostly to make them
easier to read and understand.  I also note that outside of the core
of IDPR software developers and users, no one has ever submitted any
comments on IDPR protocol architecture or protocol specification
documents resident in the drafts directory.  Until Yakov's recent
submission.

I pose the following questions to the working group:

Do people require more time to digest the information in the documents
and the questions and comments that have travelled across the mailing
list in the past few weeks?  Should we request an extension for the
proposed standard consideration period?

Please speak up.

I will post responses to Yakov's comments on the IDPR architecture
draft, Noel's and Tony's comments on the new policy issues, and
Woody's comments on fragmentation and TCP, in separate messages.

m