> > >> > +1. I like that phrasing. It summarizes the requirements document pretty > well >
Yet it never was worded that way when this WG started debating mainly WS. In fact, I don't recall any other protocol being discussed on this board so I disagree with the term "requirement" in this very case. -- - Sylvain http://www.defuze.org http://twitter.com/lawouach
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
