>>>>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2001 10:52:49 +0700,
>>>>> Robert Elz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> So, I'd prefer to complete & document the receive case, and just leave the
> send case for a later doc to define. That is, not have any method at all
> defined for inserting headers in the new doc for now (implementors can keep
> implementing the current spec).
Hmm, I'm still not convinced the idea of the full flexibility, but at
least we need to separate the header issue from the rest of the API
spec for now.
As for the I-D cutoff issue, I personally do not think the deadline
itself is so important (because I don't think we can reach a full
consensus on the API spec by the meeting even without the header
issue.) However, it would be a good excuse to accelerate the job, so
I'd like to propose to separate the header issue from the spec,
concentrate the rest of the issues, and try to get the next revision
published by the cut-off date.
(sorry for continuing the meta-discussion. I'll then go to the
technical ones.)
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
