Section 8 states
Applications MUST not set contradictory flags at the same time.
I think the document should specify what the API must do if
contradictory flags are set. That would be the normative MUST, not
the above statement of the obvious.
Brian
___
Brian,
> Section 8 states
>
>>Applications MUST not set contradictory flags at the same time.
>
> I think the document should specify what the API must do if
> contradictory flags are set. That would be the normative MUST, not
> the above statement of the obvious.
Thanks for your review, Bria
On 2007-05-21 12:47, Jari Arkko wrote:
Brian,
Section 8 states
Applications MUST not set contradictory flags at the same time.
I think the document should specify what the API must do if
contradictory flags are set. That would be the normative MUST, not
the above statement of the obvious.
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive. Apologies for the late arri
All;
There are three opportunities each year to be a Host and Sponsor of an
IETF meeting in venues throughout the world. The IETF calendar with the
regions targeted for the meetings can be found at:
http://www3.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt. The Host may even suggest
a particular city f
All;
Based upon feedback received an adjustment was made in March of 2013.
Please advise if any further modification to the proposed IETF Meeting
schedule below is desired.
Thanks
Ray Pelletier
IAD
2011
16IETF 80Mar 27 - Apr 1
17IETF 81Jul 24 - 29
18IETF 82No
On 5/19/07, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well Rob, I think the community at large and the IESG in particular
would welcome suggestions on what to do with this one.
Sorry Tim, can't agree with that assertion. At least some people seem
to be content with handwaving, if the current Atompub
On Sunday, May 20, 2007 01:41:29 PM -0700 Eric Rescorla
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree that these specs should explicitly specify which TLS version
to support. As a practical matter, this is either 1.0 or 1.1, since
1.2 is not yet finished. Unfortunately, which one to require isn't
reall
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
...
It seems to me that specs should _not_ explicitly specify which TLS version
to support, and should instead refer to an STD number. Applications don't
generally specify which verisons of IP or TCP to use, and TLS is at a similar
level of abstrac
