On Sunday, June 15, 2003 11:37 AM, Yakov Shafranovich
[SMTP:research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com] wrote:
So I am assuming that you will be adding extensibility requirements as part
of the requirements draft you are working on?
Actually, no this is a 'requirement' for consideration of those
[interoperability/extensibility] issues NOT a requirement for extensibility.
-e
At 11:48 PM 6/14/2003 -0400, Eric D. Williams wrote:
This message intends to address the issue raised concerning this statement:
'Another very important point, is the need to define the CRI protocol as
extensible. We need to provide space for implementors to add their own
features such as hash cash, digital signatures, etc.'
This is a SHOULD part of the broader requirement. Sorry if that was
unclear.
I am getting back up to speed after a few days, only this message left
to go
;-).
-e
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg