--On 2000-01-05 02.37 -0800, Ed Gerck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 proposed RFC is thus an outdated spec -- problems that were actually 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. In real life, I have not checked whether NSI really _uses_ what we talked about in the timeframe March-October, and in some cases (timestamps for example) it is already clear that they use what is specified in the I-D and NOT what the RAB proposed, i.e. what is in the email archives of RAB. So, in what order the specifications were created have nothing to do with what we are checking today. We are checking the I-D with what is used. Nothing else. Have you been using the protocol that is in use today? If not, I ask myself how you can state that the protocol is different from what is specified in the I-D. paf
- Re: Last Call: Registry R... Gordon Cook
- Re: Last Call: Registry R... Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- Re: Last Call: Registry R... David R. Conrad
- Re: Last Call: Registry R... Ed Gerck
- Re: Last Call: Registry R... David R. Conrad
- Back to the drawing board... Ed Gerck
- Re: Back to the drawing b... Patrik Fältström
- Re: Back to the drawing b... Ed Gerck
- Re: Back to the drawing b... Patrik Fältström
- Re: Back to the drawing b... Ed Gerck
- Re: Back to the drawing b... Patrik Fältström
- Re: Back to the drawing b... Ed Gerck
- Re: Back to the drawing b... Patrik Fältström
- Re: Back to the drawing b... Randy Bush
- Re: Back to the drawing b... Rick H Wesson
- Re: Back to the drawing b... Patrik Fältström
- Re: Last Call: Registry R... Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: Registry R... Rick H Wesson
- Re: Last Call: Registry R... John W. Noerenberg
- Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol... Ian Jackson
- Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Ve... Ed Gerck