Stephen Farrell wrote:
Could be. However, I don't think we need to halt all progress on ADSP.
We can and should clarify ADSP (e.g. as requested by Pasi) and then if
it turns out that a new erratum on 4871 is agreed, we may or may not
need to revisit something in ADSP.
Given where we're at in the process for ADSP, I would have thought that
those who feel that i=/d= needs clarifying in 4871 would try resolve
that as a matter of (relative) urgency. Otherwise ADSP is likely to
be in Pasi's queue for a long time.
Hello Stephen and Dave, i'm not professional about Internet Draft.
However, totally i agree with Stephen's opinion.
And I know that reappraisal about RFC4871 is tired. But i'm sure that
the reappraisal *will* make more perfect ADSP ;;
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to