Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!kjm
From: kjm@ut-emx.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Comment on RFC1124 (?) / OSI Transition
Summary: This is not progress!
Message-ID: <19175@ut-emx.UUCP>
Date: 5 Oct 89 02:20:39 GMT
References: <8910022323.AA11747@venera.isi.edu>
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
Lines: 40

In article <8910022323.AA11747@venera.isi.edu>, pvm@VENERA.ISI.EDU
           (Paul Mockapetris) writes:
> Most of the arguments to date have focused on two issues:
> 
>       Freedom to print RFCs
> and
>       Freedom to GREP RFCs
> 
> [...]
> I think that the second freedom
> is desirable but has to strike a balance against progress.

Losing a powerful capability is progress?  Right...

> I can't
> imagine RFCS about X, multimedia, or several other topics without
> graphics.

Which could perfectly well be done as separate plates, as previously
mentioned.

> I also wanted to add that we could view the passing of the second
> freedom as a step in the transition to OSI.  I suggest the following
> sequence:
> 
> 1     Text RFCs.
> 2     Text and PS RFCs which are less accessible.
> ...
> 7     Copyrighted RFCs with ISO/CCITT numbers which must be purchased.

You want to make it as hard as you think you can get away with for people
to implement new Internet software, do you?

--
The above viewpoints are mine.  They are unrelated to those of
anyone else, including my wife, our cats, and my employer.

Kenneth J. Montgomery               Senior Operating System Specialist
kjm@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu          University of Texas System
                                    Center for High Performance Computing