Subject: Re: OBJECTION: Last Call: Message Submission to Proposed Standard

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:55:36 +0800

At 12:37 PM 9/28/98 -0500, Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg) wrote:
>> Before I restate the arguments made previously, can someone explain why is
>> this now being advanced as a Proposed Standard?  I have seen no discussion

My own thought on the reason:  In effect, a BCP defines a usage profile.  A
standards track work defines a protocol.  Even something as small as a port
number difference formally defines a new protocol, since it is an essential
component for "rendez-vous" between two processes.  In other words, it is
not just a difference in how a protocol is used, but in fact defines a new
protocol.

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1(408)246 8253
<mailto:[email-masked]>                        675 Spruce Drive
                                                  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
Brandenburg Consulting
<http://www.brandenburg.com>                         Tel: +60(19)3299 445
                                              Post Office Box 296, U.P.M.
Fax: +1(408)246 8253                     Serdang, Selangor 43400 MALAYSIA

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 21:07:55 -0700

Greg,

I won't speak for others' logic, but here's mine:

Message Submission defines a protocol, and a BCP isn't meant to define
protocols.
-- 
Eliot Lear
[email-masked]

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 21:07:55 -0700

Greg,