From cooper@longshot.ds.boeing.com Tue Jun 13 11:21:13 1995
Return-Path: <cooper@longshot.ds.boeing.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 08:16:55 +0800
From: cooper@longshot.ds.boeing.com (Dan Cooper)
To: roby@ida.org
Subject: response from Dan Ehrenfried
Content-Length: 1426
X-Lines: 34
Status: RO

FYI:

Here's the best response I could get from Dan Ehrenfried, regarding
his issue (#8 I think) about hierarchy flattening:

> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 06:26:31 PDT
> From: dhe@rational.com
> To: cooper@longshot.ds.boeing.com (Dan Cooper)
> Subject: Re: Proposed Draft Agenda for ASISWG Meeting
> 
> SOrry about the bounce with Little tree. I have moved to
> Montana and in the interim, (ie trying to get the internet connections
> that I need up here) littletree.com has gone dormant. Should be back up
> soon though.

Clyde: you might keep his old address (dhe@rational.com) on the 
mailing list(s), since dhe@littletree.com bounces.

> As far as the flattening of node kind, I think it should be obvious
> given the differences from the original lrm_interfaces specs. Since
> I originally designed those, that would be my best proposal. I think you
> can see that there has been much much flattening since then.
> 
> But in the end, it doesn't really matter. I know my way around asis and
> can adapt to anything. I have already adapted with all of my current
> software, so in fact a change would be more work for me. My interest is
> in making the spec appeal to a wider audience than just a few ASIS hacks.
> I think ,more hierarchy allows people to organize and compartenmentalize (sp?)
> the broad spec in their minds.
> 
> With all of the new things happening here, I wont be able to make the session,
> sorry.
> 
> dan