Hi Hesham,
Since DHC WG explicitly recommended sending such request to MIF, IMHO trying to
do it in
MEXT will only cause delay in doing it in MIF.
IMHO, the best way forward is not to extend DHCP but to revise and make the
change in the
RFC. But I guess this is another discussion!
Wassim H.
On Sep 11, 2010, at 5:22 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> Le 11/09/2010 08:13, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/09/10 12:34 AM, "Alexandru Petrescu"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Le 10/09/2010 14:12, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
>
> When it is away from home it is fully a Ho
On Sep 11, 2010, at 10:20 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> I don't see any point in having a design conversation based on what might
> happen to future iterations of the design.
I don't see the point in having a design conversation that isn't based on what
might happen to the design. If the
Although I agree, and will stipulate, that:
-- Multiple syntaxes are nearly always a bad idea
and
-- iCal is badly broken (in fact, more broken than any of the cited
articles indicate)
We don't live in the best of all possible worlds. There is a demonstrable need
to continue
Le 11/09/2010 08:13, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
On 11/09/10 12:34 AM, "Alexandru Petrescu"
wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 14:12, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
When it is away from home it is fully a Host on the egress
interface. When at home fully Router on same. I am happy with it
this way.
=> O
