Scott,
--On 29. juni 2005 19:22 -0400 Scott Bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not a hard concept. It just isn't mentioned or implied in RFC 2780.
neither is not drinking gasoline but I trust that will not change
your desire to not do so
while Brian and the IESG have certainly chosen
--On fredag, juli 01, 2005 19:20:37 +0700 Robert Elz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Date:Fri, 01 Jul 2005 12:26:31 +0200
From:Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| So we've got two possible interpretations:
|
| - The authors
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 07:20:37PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
I do not agree. To me, everything in 2434 is talking about what level
of documentation should be required to register a parameter (code point,
whatever you want to call it) via the IANA. The IESG approval
section contains
Date:Fri, 01 Jul 2005 16:14:54 +0200
From:Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I don't agree, which is no surprise.
Not really!
| RFC 2434 also says (section 2):
|
|One way to insure community review of prospective
Date:Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:24:42 -0400
From:Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| So if someone documented a code point in a registry with a scares
| number of available code points which was actively harmful to the
| entire
It's not a hard concept. It just isn't mentioned or implied in RFC 2780.
neither is not drinking gasoline but I trust that will not change
your desire to not do so
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
