Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!GATEWAY.MITRE.ORG!lazear
From: lazear@GATEWAY.MITRE.ORG
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: New Host-Requirement RFCs
Message-ID: <8910121259.AA15677@gateway.mitre.org>
Date: 12 Oct 89 12:59:03 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 16

It seems quite appropriate for someone who wants the help
and definition that the RFC provides, but who only needs a
portion of the functionality, to specify the parts of the
RFC that are "optional" for his/her procurement.  Thus,
if you don't want your DOS "super-terminal" to do SMTP,
make it an optional part of the specs you put in your
RFP.

The downside is that *you* have to decide what will affect
your interoperability, not some committee from a larger
community of interest.  Cutting out the "wrong" part of the
RFC may cut off your options later, but that's part of being
an informed consumer (i.e., buying what you asked for, not 
just what you meant to ask for).

	Walt (Lazear@gateway.mitre.org)