Re: RE: ISP Question

[Dieter@isodraw.de (Dieter Weidenbrueck)]

no objections from my side.

Dieter

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lofton Henderson" <lofton@rockynet.com>
To: <cgmopen-members@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 4:30 PM
Subject: Fwd: RE: ISP Question


> CGM Open Members --
>
> It appears that it is not an option, to republish the 4 ISPs as a
Technical
> Report.
>
> Does anyone object to the "withdraw" option?
>
> (CGMO could perhaps capture and archive the ISP source documents, to
ensure
> that they're not completely lost -- may be of historical or some other
> interest, some day.)
>
> -Lofton.
>
>
> >Reply-To: <puk@igraphics.com>
> >From: "Richard F. Puk" <rfpuk@earthlink.net>
> >To: <lofton@terminal.rockynet.com>, "Steve Carson"
<carson@gscassociates.com>,
> >         <100434.3031@compuserve.com>
> >Subject: RE: ISP Question
> >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 19:33:53 -0700
> >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
> >Importance: Normal
> >X-RCPT-TO: <lofton@terminal.rockynet.com>
> >
> >Hi, Lofton --
> >
> >Converting these to technical reports does not appear to be an option.
Our
> >choices are Confirm,
> >Withdraw, and Revise and there is no manpower or expertise to do
revisions.
> >
> >   -- Dick
> >
> >**************************************************
> >* Richard F. Puk, Ph.D.
> >* President
> >* Intelligraphics Incorporated
> >* 7644 Cortina Court, Carlsbad, CA  92009-8206 USA
> >* Ph:  1-760-753-9027, E-Mail: puk@igraphics.com
> >**************************************************
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: lofton [mailto:lofton@terminal.rockynet.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 7:30 PM
> > > To: Steve Carson; puk@igraphics.com; 100434.3031@compuserve.com
> > > Subject: ISP Question
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello Everyone --
> > >
> > > Regarding the question of the 4 ISPs:  the consensus is that we
> > > think they should be preserved as Technical Reports.  But there
> > > has been negligible commercial or other implementation interest,
> > > and therefore it is probably not appropriate to continue them as
> > > international standards.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > -Lofton.
> > >
>
>