Re: my 2 cents worth

Ian Duncan <id@cc.mcgill.ca> Tue, 07 June 1994 23:18 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20352; 7 Jun 94 19:18 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20348; 7 Jun 94 19:18 EDT
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20282; 7 Jun 94 19:18 EDT
Received: (from postman@localhost) by po5.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) id TAA05390; Tue, 7 Jun 1994 19:15:29 -0400
Received: via switchmail for ietf-pop3+@andrew.cmu.edu; Tue, 7 Jun 1994 19:15:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.YhxDxfy00UdaACmE5S>; Tue, 7 Jun 1994 19:14:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sifon.CC.McGill.CA (sifon.CC.McGill.CA [132.206.27.10]) by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.7/8.6.6) with ESMTP id TAA03775 for <ietf-pop3@andrew.cmu.edu>; Tue, 7 Jun 1994 19:14:44 -0400
Received: from java.cc.mcgill.ca (java.CC.McGill.CA [132.206.35.22]) by sifon.CC.McGill.CA (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id TAA15543; Tue, 7 Jun 1994 19:14:36 -0400
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 19:14:35 -0400 (EDT)
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Ian Duncan <id@cc.mcgill.ca>
X-Orig-Sender: Ian Duncan <id@cc.mcgill.ca>
Reply-To: Ian Duncan <id@cc.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: my 2 cents worth
To: Michael D'Errico <Mike@software.com>
cc: ietf-pop3@andrew.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: <19940607232806.AAA3890@rome.software.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9406071818.E16154-0100000@java.cc.mcgill.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

On Tue, 7 Jun 1994, Michael D'Errico wrote:
> Ian,
> 
> I'm terribly sorry!  I misinterpreted what you were trying to say, and
> my response was unwarranted.  You meant that the link might not be TCP,
> but a serial line or something similar, right?
 

Yep. I'm a bit guilt too -- I did understand your original point and
really wasn't trying to misrepresent it -- I was just a bit careless. 

And actually I wasn't even connecting it into issues of underlying
transport. All I was trying to do was flag the 8 bit assumption since
we've been flogged by it in the SMTP realm. There's nothing I see in
either of the two reference documents I've got close at hand -- RFC1081
and 'draft-rose-again' -- about constraining the character set and my
conservative posture when interpreting protocol spec's set off warnings --
that's all.

BTW After scanning both documents again it seems to me that TCP is the
only considered transport. Sigh. 

   ...   ian   <id@cc.mcgill.ca>
Ian Duncan  ---  McGill University Computing Centre  ---  +.514.398.3710