Stephen Farrell wrote: [...] > Could be. However, I don't think we need to halt all progress on ADSP. > We can and should clarify ADSP (e.g. as requested by Pasi) and then if > it turns out that a new erratum on 4871 is agreed, we may or may not > need to revisit something in ADSP. > > Given where we're at in the process for ADSP, I would have thought that > those who feel that i=/d= needs clarifying in 4871 would try resolve > that as a matter of (relative) urgency. Otherwise ADSP is likely to > be in Pasi's queue for a long time.
Hello Stephen and Dave, i'm not professional about Internet Draft. However, totally i agree with Stephen's opinion. And I know that reappraisal about RFC4871 is tired. But i'm sure that the reappraisal *will* make more perfect ADSP ;; byunghee _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
