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:  ISO controversy
Message-ID: <8703091547.AA11289@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Mon, 9-Mar-87 10:36:12 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8703091547.AA11289
Posted: Mon Mar  9 10:36:12 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Mar-87 04:26:15 EST
References: <8703081837.a017969@Huey.UDEL.EDU>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 16
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa

Dave--
   You appear to have fallen into the same trap as Marshall Rose
did (and as Dennis Perry did, as witness his recent msg to Marshall,
copied to TCP-IP): what they say to you in a meeting is NOT binding;
what they publish in a specification IS.
   See 1.4, Applicability (emphasis added): "GOSIP is to be USED
by ALL Federal Government agencies..." and "FOR A PERIOD OF TWO
YEARS, agencies are PERMITTED to procure alternative interoperble
protocols...."  Does that sound like "peaceful coexistence"?
   Rather than get all pedantic over how much havoc even an "i.e."
instead of an "e.g." in a spec can cause, I'll settle for urging
you to take whatever action you think appropriate to make the
GOSIP spec come out with language supporting the position you
heard rather than the position it currently takes.
   cheers, map
-------