Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!QUABBIN.SCRC.SYMBOLICS.COM!DCP
From: DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.SYMBOLICS.COM.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Re: IEEE and Ethernet
Message-ID: <860627201823.7.DCP@FIREBIRD.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Fri, 27-Jun-86 20:18:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: FIREBIRD.860627201823.7.DCP
Posted: Fri Jun 27 20:18:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jun-86 10:54:07 EDT
References: <8606272158.AA12405@trantor.UMD.EDU>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 24
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa


    Date: Fri, 27 Jun 86 17:58:28 EDT
    From: Louis A. Mamakos <louie@trantor.UMD.EDU>

    It is because of things like this that standardization bodies have bad
    reputations.  You can definitly smell a standard written by committee, 
    with each member's own hidden agenda slipped in somewhere.

A somewhat constructive question: Is it written down what the Charter
and Goals of the 802 standards committee is?  Is "to allow flexibility
for experimentation" one of the goals?  If not, then there are several
organizations that will not be able to use 802 because they need the
ability to experiment (and get work done, since non-ISO things are (by
their definition) experimental).  If so, I think they need to be
informed they are not addressing this goal.

    This will delay acceptance and conversion from the DEC-Intel-XEROX 
    Ethernet standard quite a while, at least around here.  If it works,
    why break it?

    Standards are great; everyone should have one of their own.

    Louis A. Mamakos  WA3YMH    Internet: louie@TRANTOR.UMD.EDU
    University of Maryland, Computer Science Center - Systems Programming