Martin Duerst wrote:
Re. pre-5378 vs. post-5378 material, please note that in many
cases, an RFC may be post-5378, but the Internet-Drafts having
lead up to it may be pre-5378, or the lastest available Internet-
Draft may be post-5378, but earlier ones may be pre-5378.
In other words, just
Re. pre-5378 vs. post-5378 material, please note that in many
cases, an RFC may be post-5378, but the Internet-Drafts having
lead up to it may be pre-5378, or the lastest available Internet-
Draft may be post-5378, but earlier ones may be pre-5378.
In other words, just looking at things at the RFC
Joel Halpern wrote:
The working group could have included what
Simon asked for in 5377. The rough consensus of the WG was not to do
so.
That is accurate. It is also a damned shame, and many of us still don't
agree.
/Larry Rosen
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm
Hi -
From: Bill Manning bmann...@isi.edu
To: Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com
Cc: 'IETF Discussion' ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite your
reviewandcomments on a proposed Work-Around to the Pre-5378
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 04:28:31PM -0800, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
From: Bill Manning bmann...@isi.edu
To: Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com
Cc: 'IETF Discussion' ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Trustees] ANNOUNCEMENT: The IETF Trustees invite
