Re: environment option draft

Steve Alexander <stevea@lachman.com> Mon, 11 October 1993 01:49 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12723; 10 Oct 93 21:49 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12719; 10 Oct 93 21:49 EDT
Received: from timbuk.cray.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16680; 10 Oct 93 21:49 EDT
Received: from hemlock.cray.com by cray.com (4.1/CRI-MX 2.19btd) id AA29934; Sun, 10 Oct 93 20:50:04 CDT
Received: by hemlock.cray.com id AA22312; 4.1/CRI-5.6; Sun, 10 Oct 93 20:49:58 CDT
Received: from cray.com (timbuk.cray.com) by hemlock.cray.com id AA22307; 4.1/CRI-5.6; Sun, 10 Oct 93 20:49:55 CDT
Received: from laidbak.i88.isc.com by cray.com (4.1/CRI-MX 2.19btd) id AA29875; Sun, 10 Oct 93 20:49:52 CDT
Received: from ra.i88.isc.com by laidbak.i88.isc.com with SMTP (5.65/isc-mail-gw/2/23/93) id AA06962; Sun, 10 Oct 93 20:48:56 -0500
Received: from ozzy.i88.isc.com by ra.i88.isc.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA21089; Sun, 10 Oct 93 20:49:28 CDT
Message-Id: <9310110149.AA21089@ra.i88.isc.com>
To: Sam Sjogren <sjogren@tgv.com>
Cc: telnet-ietf@cray.com, klensin@infoods.mit.edu
Subject: Re: environment option draft
In-Reply-To: Message from sjogren@TGV.COM of 8 Oct 1993 18:10:19 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1993 20:49:22 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Steve Alexander <stevea@lachman.com>

sjogren@TGV.COM (Sam Sjogren) writes:
>Any problem with just including [the interoperability document] in the 
>environment option RFC?

No, no problem.  It's just that I believe that it is our intent that these hacks
die off in time.  Therefore, I would prefer not to clutter the main spec with an
annoying diversion.

I am willing to be persuaded otherwise, but given that the documents are both
basically done, I think it would just introduce extra bonus delay to a process
that has been going on for quite a while already.

I don't anticipate any trouble getting Dave's document out as an Informational
RFC.

Please review both documents Real Soon Now, since I intend to send them off
to the IESG on the 18th unless a problem shows up.  I encourage a careful
review, since I never want to edit this document again, and I would wager Dave
feels the same ;->

Thanks,
-- Steve