Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!oddjob!ncar!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!TWG.COM!kzm
From: kzm@TWG.COM (Keith McCloghrie)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
Subject: Re: PcIp scorecard - revision 4
Message-ID: <8805200337.aa08742@Louie.UDEL.EDU>
Date: 20 May 88 07:22:37 GMT
References: <8805111448.AA20062@sccgate.scc.com>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 21

Mike,

> I also viewed the scorecard as a list of user preferences and not a rehash
> of the "official" requirements.

I wasn't trying to be difficult, and I wasn't suggesting that POP be
deleted from the list, just moved to the Nice-to-Have category (which
Hank sent me a note to say he was considering).  It just seemed like 
users should be warned about the status of POP, in that it is not an
official standard, like all the other "Must have" protocols (and even 
Finger and Whois) are.  

Also, as a point of information, the IETF has a working group which is
preparing an RFC on the requirements for Host implementations of TCP/IP.
It will be the Host equivalent of RFC-1009 (the gateway requirements 
spec.).  One thing that has been suggested is that as well as all the
text, it also have a checklist containing all the items of conformance 
within each protocol.  James Van Bokkelen has been contributing as well
as Dave Crocker and myself, so the PC vendors are well-represented.

Keith.