On Oct 12, 2016 5:35 PM, "Thiago Macieira" <thiago.macieira at intel.com> wrote: > > Em quarta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2016, ?s 16:15:56 CEST, Gregg Reynolds > escreveu: > > the larger point being that if the feature is underspecified, and the > > protocol cstchescon, we can expect non-interoperable implementations that > > can legitimately claim to be conformant. > > That's very clear. We've already established that this protocol is flawed and > needs to be replaced. I was assuming we were discussing the case after we fixed > the feature. >
works for me, but I'd like to hear from more people (like the original proposers) before we declare that we've established that the current proposal is flawed. anybody? gregg > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20161012/ed3cbcd5/attachment.html>
