At 08:35 AM 9/12/2001, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >But you didn't respond to my comment that this issue *is* relevant to the >Last Call precisely because there was no discussion whether the work >should have been chartered in the first place, if it had been a WG submission. While we are at it, we need to review the decision to permit specification of IP over more than one medium. It is architecturally the same issue. d/ ps. Your previous comment about IETF tendency to restrict options neglected to note that that is WITHIN a particular protocol. The IETF has NOT had a track record of restricting convergence choices. ---------- Dave Crocker <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464
- Re-visiting the jutification for BEEP Dave Crocker
- RE: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed Stan... Christian Huitema
- RE: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed Stan... Eamon O'Tuathail
- RE: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed Stan... Eamon O'Tuathail
- Re: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed Stan... Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- RE: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed Stan... Christian Huitema
- Re: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed... Marshall T. Rose
- RE: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed... Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed Stan... Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed... Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Prop... Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to ... Brian E Carpenter
- Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed Standard Tony . Coates
- Re: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed Stan... Eamon O'Tuathail
