Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!decwrl!oli-stl!asylum!karl
From: karl@asylum.SF.CA.US (Karl Auerbach)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Comment on RFC1124 (?) / OSI Transition
Message-ID: <6877@asylum.SF.CA.US>
Date: 10 Oct 89 18:54:07 GMT
References: <8910100305.AA19076@sayshell.umd.edu>
Reply-To: karl@asylum.UUCP (Karl Auerbach)
Organization: The Asylum; Belmont, CA
Lines: 15

In article <8910100305.AA19076@sayshell.umd.edu> louie@SAYSHELL.UMD.EDU ("Louis A. Mamakos") writes:
>Do you all have a serious interest in the particular RFC's that were
>published in PostScript, or is this just another opportunity to flame?
>Have you tried to USE these RFCs and found them deficient?

As the author of the original message in this discussion, I find your
comment personally offensive.  Are you really asserting that I took
the trouble to obtain RFC1124 just because I wanted to flame on its
form, not its content?  If so, you are badly mistaken.

In any event, this discussion has gone on long enough and I believe
the concensus is that postscript as the sole representation is not a
good idea.

				--karl--