Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ucbvax!A.ISI.EDU!PADLIPSKY
From: PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: GOSIP
Message-ID: <8703041612.AA04079@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Wed, 4-Mar-87 10:49:30 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8703041612.AA04079
Posted: Wed Mar  4 10:49:30 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Mar-87 04:37:30 EST
References: <3726.541809095@nrtc-gremlin.arpa>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 23
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa

Marshall--
   It's difficult for me to see how anyone could call the
Applicability section of a proposed Federal standard a
"fine point."  For more on the topic of how the wording
of the spec can subvert the intent of the committee, see 
pp. 84-5 of The Book (which you must have, since you were
good enough to have quoted p. 228 at me [somewhat out of
context] in your previous msg).
   Re the presumed "OMB mandate": In my view, it's almost
certainly a red herring (stipulating that it does indeed
exist, which you didn't seem sure of), for two separate
reasons: (1) OMB almost certainly was put up to it by NBS,
so your appeal to it represents a type of circular reasoning,
not an external confirmation.  (2) It's manifestly
premature, regardless of whose idea it was originally;
see my critique of the GOSIP draft.  But I'm certainly quite
willing to join you in encouraging anybody who's tracking
this disucssion who knows how to alert OMB to the error of
its ways to do so--as quickly and as emphatically as possible.
(I don't, however, agree with your implication that they
shouldn't bother to try to beat on NBS, too.)
   cheers, map
-------