Re: Registration model, 2821bis-06
2008-04-02 10:31:19
Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
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 ...".
Ahh, I see. Since there have already been quite a few postings, by several
different people, that explained this, it looks like a review of the archive is
in order.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: 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
- Re: Scope Creep, Michael Storz
|
|
|