Re: X-* header fields (Was: Getting 2822 to Draft)
2004-01-06 05:38:43
Keith Moore writes:
Sigh. I'd hoped we could avoid this discussion, but it seems like
people can't resist focusing on it to the detriment of attention to
more substantive issues. (Or maybe this really is the most
substantive issue in 2822, and we should regard this debate as a sign
that we don't have anything worse to worry about?)
I don't think said substantive issues will be discussed until there is a
draft, or at least an suggested list of changes. (I saw Bruce's
grammar, and will go through it next Thursday.)
--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
|
|
|