[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IBM US Patent #5,148,479

To: "William Allen Simpson" <Bill.Simpson@um.cc.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: IBM US Patent #5,148,479
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 08:20:12 -0400
Cc: jwlowe@VNET.IBM.COM, ipsec@ans.net
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 24 Apr 1995 17:07:54 GMT." <199504251017.AA09928@interlock.ans.net>
Reply-To: perry@imsi.com


"William Allen Simpson" says:
> > From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
> > This would be a
> > sufficiently public declaration that it would probably make a number
> > of people calmer. I'll point out that this isn't unprecedented --
> > other organizations have produced similar RFCs in the past.
> >
> No, Perry, I respectfully disagree.  The proper procedure listed in
> RFC-1602 is that the memo be sent to the Secretariat.

I was unaware that there was a fixed proceedure -- RFC-1602 isn't my
strong point. I suggest that whatever the set proceedure is, that it
be followed.

Perry

References:

Re: IBM US Patent #5,148,479

From: "William Allen Simpson" <Bill.Simpson@um.cc.umich.edu>

Prev by Date: Re: IBM US Patent #5,148,479
Next by Date: Re: IBM US Patent #5,148,479
Prev by thread: Re: IBM US Patent #5,148,479
Next by thread: Re: IBM US Patent #5,148,479
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread