A=IMX Re: Amsterdam IETF x400ops minutes

Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com> Sat, 13 November 1993 00:27 UTC

To: Allan Cargille <Allan.Cargille@cs.wisc.edu>
Cc: ietf-osi-x400ops@cs.wisc.edu
Subject: A=IMX Re: Amsterdam IETF x400ops minutes
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 09 Nov 1993 23:08:23 GMT." <931109230752*/G=Allan/S=Cargille/OU=cs/O=uw-madison/PRMD=xnren/C=us/@MHS>
Reply-To: Stef@nma.com
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1993 16:21:49 -0800
Message-Id: <6962.753150109@odin.nma.com>

Hello Allan, et al -- 

I take note of the decision to not publish the A=IMX Informational RFC
as an IETF product, so I will now proceed to work the document in
another forum.

I propose that we revert to the use of a mailing list, in lieu of
having any other forum for now, and that we do this with the mailing
list that Tony Genovese established <us-admd@es.net>, just to expedite
publication of the document.

Until we can converge on our own us-admd@es.net mailing list for
discussions, we should continue the <ietf-osi-x400ops@cs.wisc.edu>
disxcussion for the sake of continuity and progress.  The overlap
should not last more than a week or so.

I am comfortable with admitting anyone with an interest in the topic
to the discussions, regardless of citizenship, as long as we
understand that the decisions being made are US-centric.

It seems to me that we only ove one isssue to still rsolve, and that
is whether or not the ANSI +construction rules need to be referenced
in the A=IMX RFC.  I feel this is not required, since the ANSI
Procedures already spell our the rules, and ANSI registration of A=IMX
will automatically invoke the +construction rules, but I am open to
suggested text to deal with the consequences.

Best...\Stef

Amsterdam IETF x400ops minutes Allan Cargille
A=IMX Re: Amsterdam IETF x400ops minutes Einar Stefferud