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

Frank Kastenholz <kasten@ftp.com> Wed, 03 May 1995 13:06 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02397; 3 May 95 9:06 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02393; 3 May 95 9:06 EDT
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05753; 3 May 95 9:06 EDT
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02386; 3 May 95 9:06 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02381; 3 May 95 9:06 EDT
Received: from wd40.ftp.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05748; 3 May 95 9:06 EDT
Received: from ftp.com by ftp.com ; Wed, 3 May 1995 09:07:10 -0400
Received: from mailserv-D.ftp.com by ftp.com ; Wed, 3 May 1995 09:07:10 -0400
Received: from kasten.europa by mailserv-D.ftp.com (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05022; Wed, 3 May 95 09:04:44 EDT
Date: Wed, 3 May 95 09:04:44 EDT
Message-Id: <9505031304.AA05022@mailserv-D.ftp.com>
To: mankin@isi.edu
Subject: Re: Last Call: RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2 to Proposed Standard
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Frank Kastenholz <kasten@ftp.com>
Reply-To: kasten@ftp.com
Cc: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
X-Orig-Sender: kasten@mailserv-d.ftp.com
Repository: mailserv-D.ftp.com, [message accepted at Wed May 3 09:04:37 1995]
Originating-Client: europa
Content-Length: 1256

 > 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