Re: draft-rfced-info-banan-00.txt

[Mohsen BANAN <mohsen@neda.com>]

>>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 1998 16:14:09 -0500, Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> said:

  >> Keith: You have copied the author on this, which I think is a Good Thing.
  >> Would you be willing to work with the author to make the document and the
  >> protocol something worthwhile?

  Keith> I'd like to see a well-designed protocol in this area.  I don't know how
  Keith> much time I have to spend on it, but I'm certainly willing to discuss
  Keith> the matter if the author is interested in pursuing that course of action.

Two points.

1) Keith and others are more than welcome to work on 
   what they consider a well-designed protocol in this area.

   I and others who have been working on EMSD over the past 4 years
   may even want to join in and contribute.

2) In my  previous message, I said that I am not interested 
   in IESG's "opinions" and "blessings".

   However, I AM VERY INTERESTED in comments that can improve
   *this revision* of the spec. So, please do send out any specific 
   comments and suggestions for improvement.


In my eyes, what needs to be done is quite simple.

 - EMSD should be published as an Informational RFC as a point-of-record.

 - If Keith, or whoever else want to work on what they consider a
   well-designed protocol in this area, go do it -- more power to them.


Delaying publication of EMSD as an Informational RFC is wrong, and I
will not tolerate it.


I also think that some of the early reactions here are premature.

To get a better feel for what EMSD is, you may want to visit
http://www.emsd.org/

Regards,

...Mohsen.