On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Dick Hardt dick.ha...@microsoft.com wrote:
1) I'd prefer to NOT include SREG in the work, but am ok with it being in
if the scope is really to clarify issues in SREG and add language directing
people to AX. Anyone else have a strong opinion either way? (SREG
=...@tokyo via iPhone
On 2009/02/04, at 7:39, Breno de Medeiros br...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Dick Hardt
dick.ha...@microsoft.com wrote:
1) I'd prefer to NOT include SREG in the work, but am ok with it
being in if the scope is really to clarify issues in SREG
1) I'd prefer to NOT include SREG in the work, but am ok with it being in if
the scope is really to clarify issues in SREG and add language directing people
to AX. Anyone else have a strong opinion either way? (SREG included in this WG
or in a different one?)
2) In the Scope section, I feel
Thanks for the feedback Breno!
Nat: can you provide some illumination? I see that CX would define attribute
types to be carried in AX. I'm confused about the scenario where information
from multiple users would be transmitted as that implies that the protocol no
longer is dealing with a single
