John C Klensin wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
> I don't disagree with anything Ned said in his note, but > want to reinforce the principle that trying to make too-fine > distinctions in this area won't work in practice and may > lead to even more confusion. Clearly Hector and SM will speak up what they had in mind, a 5xx *instead of* 354 (but then the 4xx is odd), or a 5xx *after* 354 (as in the strawman example), or maybe both... My assumption "after 354" differed from Ned's assumption, unsurprisingly our conclusions also vary. I like Ned's RFC 2920 example, and knew that I should have looked it up, but it is none of the RFCs I know "by number", and I was lazy. Where is Bruce when I need him to keep me honest... :-) Your example is also nice, and if somebody posts a draft with "retry clarifications" I hope that will also discuss the PIPELINING fine print. Frank
