Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ucbvax!NRTC-GREMLIN.ARPA!mrose
From: mrose@NRTC-GREMLIN.ARPA.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: GOSIP
Message-ID: <1104.541891929@nrtc-gremlin.arpa>
Date: Wed, 4-Mar-87 16:47:56 EST
Article-I.D.: nrtc-gre.1104.541891929
Posted: Wed Mar  4 16:47:56 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Mar-87 05:39:08 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 19
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa


    Well Mike, what can I say?  You got me on a technicality.  Final
    defense:  It is my belief that the scope and applicability sections
    of the GOSIP spec are mis-stated in that they are not consistent
    with what I thought was going on at the meeting.  Perhaps I am wrong
    and have misinterpreted what was agreed at the last meeting.  If I
    am correct in this assumption, then these two sections should be
    fixed in the final copy.  If this is done, then GOSIP is a fine
    thing.  

    If, on the other had, I am wrong, and these sections are to be an
    accurate representation of GOSIP's intent, then I have wasted
    everyone's time trying to defend something which is patently wrong
    (as most of your arguments point out) and I'll appologize.  

    However, since none of the people in the know have commented on our
    discussion, it is difficult for me to gauge how right/wrong I am.

/mtr