Patrik Fältström wrote:
--On 2000-01-05 01.29 -0800, Ed Gerck <egerck(_at_)nma(_dot_)com> wrote:
Alternatively, you may verify your mailbox of RAB messages and
decide by yourself. Also, NSI may verify the discrepancies by
themselves.
As the I-D didn't exist when the RAB existed (the date of the I-D is
December of 1999), it is plain impossible to have discussed where the I-D
differs from what was in use.
Please try again.
Try again? No, pls just follow what I suggested -- compare the December
1999 I-D (which you have, let me call this "Evidence A") with the RAB
archives and documents from March 1999 to October 1999 (which you
also have, let me call this "Evidence B"). Then, comparing Evidence A
with Evidence B you may draw your own conclusions about Evidence A
being actually *outdated* (time warp?) when compared with Evidence B
even though Evidence B was issued much *earlier*. What we have in the
proposed RFC is thus an outdated spec -- problems that were actually
reported *solved* in the March-October 1999 timeframe appear again
*unsolved* in the December 1999 timeframe.
Regarding Evidence C (what is actually used today), it is thus quite possible
to infer that it does differ from Evidence A (the proposed RFC), since Evidence
A is outdated even when compared to Evidence B which predates Evidence C.
In other words, the proposed RFC and the actual RRP protocol seem to have a
larger distance than even that between the proposed RFC and the RAB
Minutes/Documents -- which is probably not zero as you yourself say above.
Cheers,
Ed Gerck