Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 11:23:56 -0400 From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Michael A. Patton wrote: > I note in the table in 2.7.1 there's no allowance for some > combinations, which I know I've used in the past and have equipment in > my home to generate, specifically B103 at 110. It may just be that > none of these combinations are actually in use any more (I certainly > don't use them, I just collect 1970's era computer equipment :-), but > are you really sure? Wouldn't it make sense to just define a complete > orthogonal set? To the best of my knowledge both B103 and V21 were > used at both 110 and 300 in full duplex applications, and as far as I > know may still be at some location. > [PTT] The combinations shown in the document are those mentioned in Rec. V.18 for text telephony. This is the primary target of the indicators, so I don't think the others are required. One can always use the general data indicator VBDGen. OK, that makes sense and it's perfectly fine to delegate that to ISO. Since all the other things were just "Done", I won't comment on them here. In re-reading the document, I did notice some trivial things. Actually, they're all RFC Editor things and can easily wait for AUTH48 if nothing else comes up... The header shows "Updates: xxxx" If there's actually an RFC being updated, then shouldn't you already know the number? The RFC editor note in the abstract mentions changing the first normative reference. But the first normative reference is to RFC2119 which clearly doesn't need any update...you obviously meant [5] not [1]. I also note that there is still one reference to "RFC xxxx" that doesn't have a "[5]" (not the one I saw last time, you fixed that one, I just got inspired to use emacs' "Occurs" feature and noticed one other one). _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
