Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!A.ISI.EDU!PADLIPSKY
From: PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU (Michael Padlipsky)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: COS goes with TCP/IP
Message-ID: <8706231442.AA06306@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Tue, 23-Jun-87 10:29:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8706231442.AA06306
Posted: Tue Jun 23 10:29:55 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jun-87 01:54:01 EDT
References: <8706172248.AA21271@jupiter.bellcore.com>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 28

Phil--

My only complaint about the Subj msg is that you neglected to send a
copy directly to me; since I fell behind a bit in my TCP-IP skimming,
it made my day several days later than it could have.  (That you're
having to get this via the list is a different story, having to do with
the fact that my mailsender couldn't pick your address out of what your
mailsender had sent.)

The interesting question your item puts me in mind of is whether it
accounts for the organizationless status of the author of RFCs 1007/8:
do you suppose that "Wayne McCoy" could be a COSsetter who doesn't
want the press to know they're not only using our stuff but also asking
for our help?  (The question is not rhetorical; I really do wonder
why there's no organization/netmail address on those RFCs.  For that
matter, I wonder even more what the basis for 1007's section 1.3's
pronunciamento on the "mandatory" applicability of it all is.)

Another interesting question, triggered by one of the responses to
your item, is whether it's been seven years yet that we've been told
next year is THE year, but that one is rhetorical (unless you have
a really nifty answer, of course, since it's always fair to answer
rhetorical questions if you've got nifty answers to 'em).  Who knows,
maybe seven IS a lucky number....

cheers, map

-------