On 6/9/14, 7:01 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > > On 09/06/14 14:46, Brandon Williams wrote: >> >> Would you please indicate where the draft proposes a new identifier? If >> you are seeing a proposal for protocol changes somewhere in the draft, >> editing work is required in order to either clarify or excise the >> associated text.
There are 6 citations of http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6967 the document doesn't exist in a vacuum where somehow how to do it has fallen off the table. given the repeated asertion that this work is useful because of external requests (etsi) and that request is in fact tied closely to a particular method it is relatively strait forward to conflate the discussion of scenarios and methods. > Fair enough that its an assumption of mine that adding some kind of > identifier is required to meet the (no-longer mis-stated:-) > requirements for these use-cases. But I think that is logically > required, and its valid to draw obvious conclusions and its also > invalid to ignore obvious conclusions. > S. > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
