Fred Baker <> Tue, 19 November 1996 17:41 UTC

Received: from cnri by id aa06109; 19 Nov 96 12:41 EST
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14022; 19 Nov 96 12:41 EST
Received: from by id aa06101; 19 Nov 96 12:41 EST
Received: from by id aa06095; 19 Nov 96 12:41 EST
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.12/CISCO.SERVER.1.1) with ESMTP id JAA08559; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 09:39:56 -0800
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.6.8+c/CISCO.WS.1.1) with SMTP id JAA16956; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 09:39:51 -0800
Message-Id: <v02140b42aeb79deedf45@[]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 09:38:11 -0800
To: Einar Stefferud <>
From: Fred Baker <>
Subject: Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF
Cc: John C Klensin <>, Steve Coya <>, Tony Rutkowski <>,,,

At 10:55 AM 11/18/96, wrote:
>I only see one possible remaining IETF issue that might be resolved in this
>thread.  This is the qquestion of what IETF thinks about, and might want to
>do about other groups going off an using IETF processes and rules to
>independently develop standards for use n the Internet.

I don't see why anyone couldn't use the same processes if they chose to.
I'm not sure how I would stop them, nor am I sure why I would want to.

>There will of course be calls for somone to coordinate non-IETF work with
>IETF, but I think the "rules" that require the work to be done in the open
>with open work processes and open ownership of the results will allow the
>IETF to maintai awareness of the work and its progress.  I expect many ETF
>people to aso participate n these other works.

Yes, people work in whatever forums their interests lie in, and nobody
expects that the horizon starts and stops with the IETF. The one comment I
will make there is that if coordination is intended, it generally doesn't
happen by itself.

I don't suffer from insanity.  I enjoy every minute of it.