Esko Dijk <[email protected]> wrote: > Would it be solved by just dropping the claims that we Update / Extend > 8366bis? Instead we can just reference 8366bis and say we add something > to that format. Then we don't need to Update 8366 anymore, because > 8366bis is already doing this for us.
Yes, I think so. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
