Re: Getting 2822 to Draft
2004-01-02 09:21:42
We went through this before. At the end, noone raised objections against
the insertion of a sentence such as "X-* header fields are not covered
in this document". Please, can we just insert that in the list of
changes and be done?
Quarrelling about whether X-* is useful, a mistake, neither or both is
not going to help 3822, so let's not do it.
--Arnt
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: X-* header fields, (continued)
- Re: X-* header fields, Paul Smith
- Re: X-* header fields, Bruce Lilly
- Re: X-* header fields, ned+ietf-822
- Re: X-* header fields, Paul Smith
- Re: X-* header fields, Bruce Lilly
- Re: X-* header fields, ned+ietf-822
- Re: X-* header fields (Was: Getting 2822 to Draft), Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: Getting 2822 to Draft,
Arnt Gulbrandsen <=
- Re: Getting 2822 to Draft, Keith Moore
- Re: Getting 2822 to Draft, Kurt Keller
- Re: Getting 2822 to Draft, Keith Moore
- Re: Getting 2822 to Draft, Pete Resnick
- Re: Re: Getting 2822 to Draft, Dave Crocker
Re: Getting 2822 to Draft, Keith Moore
|
|
|