amanda@intercon.uu.net (Amanda Walker) (09/03/89)
Well, the "iptalk" has yet to have a submission (except from me) and we're up to 42 people on it. This leads me to make a request: The mailing list was meant as a working group, not a way for everyone who is interested to "keep up with what's going on." Please don't ask to be added to the list unless you plan to *actively* contribute to the effort of hashing out the issues and getting an RFC together. If all you want is information, just keep reading news and/or the TCP/IP mailing list. It'll show up here, I promise. I don't want to re-invent the point-to-point protocol discussion, folks. I want to codify something that works well enough for long enough that people can actually implement it and use it. Soon. As in something solid in the way of a draft RFC to talk about over Chinese food at Interop (which is only four weeks away). For the moment, I'll keep adding whoever asks, but if things keep going the way they have been for the last few days, I'm going to dub this a failure, and go back to the traditional method of setting up a private conspiracy... 1/2 :-). -- Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation amanda@intercon.uu.net | ...!uunet!intercon!amanda -- "The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was" --Walt West
billn@kinetics.UUCP (Bill Northlich) (09/07/89)
At the moment I don't see a need for a separate IPTalk mailing list/group. I would personally rather read/comment about it in comp.protocols.appletalk, for now. I certainly appreciate Amanda's enthusiasm though, as I think there is a small but enthusiastic group wanting to discuss IPTalk & etc. The RFC's the key, and I think that some headway should be made on it at the recently announced BOF to be held at Interop. /b