Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06
2008-04-02 10:17:06
Dave Crocker writes:
Difficult to see how much more completely it can be explained that
this is out of scope for the current effort.
A supporting argument would help. Try a sentence like "keeping the same
rules as in 2821 is out of scope because ..." or better "adding AAAA to
the rule about A is in scope and appropriate because ...".
Arnt
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Registration model, 2821bis-06, (continued)
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Keith Moore
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Peter J. Holzer
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Keith Moore
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Frank Ellermann
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Dave Crocker
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Keith Moore
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06,
Arnt Gulbrandsen <=
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Dave Crocker
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, ned+ietf-smtp
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, John C Klensin
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Michael Storz
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Bill McQuillan
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Hector Santos
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, SM
- Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06, Arnt Gulbrandsen
|
|
|