All, Despite Donalds assertions, Michaels observations are relevant with respect to the IETF's PSO proposal. As such, they are necessarily related. Donald E. Eastlake 3rd wrote: > From: Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:50:32 -0500 > To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: Karoline Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Godfrey Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Roy Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Bob Hasted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Jim MacFie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Kue Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > >Donald E. Eastlake 3rd a �crit: > >> > >> Whether any particular standard is available free of charge depends on > >> the policies of the standards setting body. For example, IETF > >> standards are free while ISO standards typically are not. The point > >> is that parameter assignment to avoid interoperability conflicts is > >> available even for protocols that are not freely available. > > > >Yet Ms. Scott appears to be proposing that IETF standards no longer > >be free. How, then, will interoperability be preserved? And will > >they be made available only to selected "customers"? Who will decide > >which "customers" will be given the IETF's standards? > > Whatever the appearance to you was, this was not a proposal related > to IETF standards. > > Donald Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
