Re: Last Call: RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2 to Proposed Standard

[Frank Kastenholz <[e-mail]>]

 > There was consensus on the documents fidelity to practice,
 > both in the WG (which met at 3 IETFs, the last one a year
 > ago, at which time the group finished reviewing the specs), and in
 > the Transport Area Directorate.  I thought I made such a
 > comment on both the IESG list and in our retreat.  I would not
 > go to Last Call without viewing it this way.  If you have
 > noticed any problems with the drafts yourself, please pass them
 > to me, of course, or raise them in the Last Call.

Allison,

I don't recall you mentioning this during the retreat, but then I'm
hardly an authoritative source of what was said or not :-)

Anyway, I was simply raising the question. I sort of assumed that it
had been raised in the past, but just in case... As I said in my
note, it would have been very embarrassing if it turns out that the
submitted documents do not reflect current practice... 

I have no information about any problems or the like and am not
familiar enough with RPC, etc, to be competent to judge whether there
are problems.

--
Frank Kastenholz    "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy
                     present... As our case is new, so we must think anew, and
                     act anew" - A. Lincoln