Fwd: RE: ISP Question

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

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.
> >