I think Eric's concerns reflect the difficulty of making sure that all relevant
parties are kept informed of proposals, and, though I've not had time to review
the proposal and therefore speak primarily from ignorance, I'd like to second
Eric's concern that, when proposals impact known (and, in this case, very
widely used) resources, those concerned with the operation and support of
those resources be brought into the loop if at all possible.
  Thanks,
         Jim
--------------------------Original Message---------------------------------
On Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:05:22 +0100 you said:
>On Fri, 16 Oct 92 13:16:58 -0400 Greg Vaudreuil <[log in to unmask]>
>said:
>
>>Thank  you  for  reading  the document  and  submitting  comments.  This
>>document is an Internet Draft  submitted independently for review by the
>>IETF  community. The  intent of  posting  such documents  is to  solicit
>>comments like  yours. The posting does  not lend any official  status to
>>the document.
>
>Thanks for  your prompt answer. I  understand that the document  is not a
>standard and not even about to  be reviewed for standard status. However,
>I learnt about  this through sheer luck.  I was about to  hit the discard
>key after  having done the  same for a rather  long series of  new RFC's,
>when I  suddenly realized it  could apply  to LISTSERV. My  comments were
>*not* solicited,  and the same is  true for the cooperating  networks the
>proposal  would  like to  apply  to.  The issue  was  not  brought to  my
>knowledge, nor so  much as mentioned on any of  the mailing lists devoted
>to  LISTSERV, in  spite of  the fact  that LISTSERV  is mentioned  in the
>proposal.
>
>>Should this  document move  beyond the "Interesting  Idea" stage  and be
>>submitted  as  a proposed  standard  to  the  IESG, the  community  will
>>notified
>
>I also  understand that, but  due to the  pretty loose definition  of the
>word  "community",  especially when  it  comes  to networks  with  e-mail
>connectivity, I  just want to  make sure that  my opposition to  both the
>contents of the proposal and the way  it came to be developed is formally
>registered  within the  IETF structure.  My goal  is not  to prevent  the
>proposal from  ever turning into a  standard, but to make  sure that this
>does not happen without explicit consultation of interested parties which
>ought to have been involved from  day one. In particular, if the proposal
>claims to apply to EARN and CREN, it should be formally approved by their
>respective decision-making bodies  (which I trust not  to blindly approve
>this  sort  of  proposal   without  consulting  software  developers  and
>considering the interests of their users).
>
>Thanks again for your time.
>
>  Eric