Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ittvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!hagouel
From: hagouel@ittvax.UUCP (Jack Hagouel)
Newsgroups: net.mail.msggroup
Subject: Re: RFCs vs. X.* standards
Message-ID: <1527@ittvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Oct-84 15:04:54 EST
Article-I.D.: ittvax.1527
Posted: Mon Oct 29 15:04:54 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Oct-84 08:24:39 EST
References: <74674@QZCOM> <75558@QZCOM> <858@dual.UUCP>
Organization: ITT-ATC, Stratford Ct.
Lines: 20

> For whatever glitches might be in the RFCs, they are the product of
> almost 15 years of research and practical experience, and should not be
> cavalierly discarded in favor of X.400.
> 
> 	Erik E. Fair	ucbvax!fair	fair@ucb-arpa.ARPA

Erik has a good point that RFCs have matured over years of both thinking
and everyday use. Unfortunately, this does not guarantee standards that
are useful to everybody. RFCs developed for a particular community and
with some assumptions about the supporting environment. Early design
decisions limit the amount and quality of modifications in later versions.
Although I would hardly call myself an expert on the RFCs I find that
the X.400 standards have a level of rationality rarely found in standards.
This seems to have attracted a lot of support in the industry, a necessary
ingredient for any proposal to become a standard. Could we think of them
as a second generation standard?

Jack Hagouel
...!ittvax!hagouel