Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!UIUCVMD.BITNET!PHIL
From: PHIL@UIUCVMD.BITNET (Phil Howard)
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: "restricted standards"
Message-ID: <8607100412.AA11707@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Wed, 9-Jul-86 23:01:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8607100412.AA11707
Posted: Wed Jul  9 23:01:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 10-Jul-86 23:02:26 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 5
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa

Is there anyone who agrees with me that standards that are expected to
be universally adopted should have unrestricted distribution?  I refer
to ISO X.400 and probably other ISO "standards".  I'm not against recovering
costs of distribution; I'm against restricting the distribution to a sole
agent.  X.400 issues came up on both of these groups at the same time.