Re: Banan - Re: Publication of EMSD as an Informational RFC

[Mohsen BANAN <mohsen@neda.com>]

Mr. Braden,

>>>>> On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 12:26:24 -0800, braden@ISI.EDU said:

  braden> Let us be very clear about this.  We fully realize that you have chosen
  braden> to state on your Web site that EMSD is already an RFC, as the result of
  braden> an unwarranted assumption about timing of publication of non-IETF
  braden> documents.  This was an error on your part, and it is unreasonable for
  braden> you to expect us to rescue you.

I honestly have no idea of what you are talking about.

The "Documents"/"Base Protocol Section" of http://www.emsd.org/
reads as follows:

--------

EMSD Documents: Base Protocol Specifications


   o RFCs and Drafts

     
        o RFC-2188 Efficient Short Remote Operation (ESRO) Protocol Specification
          (Plain Text <113 KB>) (HTML) (PDF <132 KB>) (Postscript <169 KB>)

          
        o Draft-RFC-EMSDP (Efficient Mail Submission and Delivery Protocol)
          (Plain Text <120 KB>) (HTML) (PDF <150 KB>) (Postscript <186 KB>)
-------

The EMSD document itself is identical to what I sent to the RFC Editor
on October 23, 1998 plus the "ACKNOWLEDGMENTS" section which I sent
the RFC Editor about a month ago.

That document is formated using the Informational RFC format template
with the 2XXX number. That generates Plain Text, HTML, PDF and PS
formats that suits different modes of usage. The idea here is that in
the interim, I don't want to have inconsistent versions of the
document floating around.  What I send to the RFC Editor is what I
consider the primary copy. And that is what is on www.emsd.org.

The pointer to the document clearly says: Draft-RFC-EMSDP and the
Title of the Web Page says "RFCs and Drafts".


If you are talking about something else that I don't know about
please let me know immediately, may be we should fix it ...


  braden> Yes, your attending the IETF meeting would have helped resolve the
  braden> issues.  You were told that some weeks before the meeting.

I was told:

>>>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 98 12:39:40 PST, rfc-ed@ISI.EDU said:
  RFC-Editor> ...  We would be happy to chat further about this in Orlando.

Of course, I am sure you understand that participation in IETF
meetings is not a requirement and my not being present at an IETF
meeting should not impact the publication of a Non-IETF,
Non-standards-track document.

Again, I'll be happy to address your concerns, if any, through email
or phone.

  braden> After we hear from the IESG, we will prepare a statement of our
  braden> concerns for your benefit.

I thought that would be part of your job. Your responsibility.

My benefit? Right!

  braden> As noted in RFC 2223, the RFC Editor sometimes seeks outside advice on
  braden> publication.   This is sort of an informal peer review.  It would be
  braden> helpful if you could refer the RFC Editor to a couple of technical
  braden> people who are familiar with EMSD, but who are in no way connected with
  braden> your company (since you have raised your profit situation as an
  braden> argument in this case).   We suggest that you pick people with stature
  braden> in your particular area.  BTW, the RFC Editor has contacted one highly
  braden> respected Internet technical person in the cellular area to ask for a
  braden> reference on your work, but he had not heard of EMSD or ESRO.

I have already provided you 4 references (people with stature in this
particular area).

When did I raise my profit situation as an argument in this case?

I'll be happy to remove the "Neda's" part from the title of the
specification if it expedites its publication. The reason why we
included the "Neda" name was because we thought that the RFC
Editor/IESG prefers it that way in the case of Non-IETF documents.


At this time, many EMSD technically knowledgeable people are connected
with Neda.  During the past 8 weeks we have repeatedly offered to
address your technical concerns, if any.


Respectfully Yours,

Mohsen Banan.