t petch <[email protected]> writes: > I think that your comments are excellent as comments on a isolated I-D > but might not be such an improvement for the set of six (or seven or > eight) that I reference. When these I-D first appeared, there was a > debate on the WG list. This is not Event-Condition-Action. Oh yes it > is. Oh no .. (we are in the pantomine season). I have seen a number of > such divergences since. Your comment that there are two different > definitions of Event in this I-D reminds me of this.
Frankly, I don't fully understand your point here. But I've been tasked with reviewing this document and have done so. Might I ask what your capacity is here; what is the context of our discussion? Dale _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
