Still might be worth a document proposing some profile, even if it does not
match current practice.
On Sep 24, 2013, at 9:12 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> I'll defer to Paul on this one.
>
> Thanks,
> Yaron
>
> On 09/24/2013 05:00 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sep 24, 2013, at 4:21
I'll defer to Paul on this one.
Thanks,
Yaron
On 09/24/2013 05:00 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Sep 24, 2013, at 4:21 AM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
Yaron Sheffer writes:
I just reread the introduction of RFC 4945 and I don't understand its
purpose. So I'm not sure it should be referenced f
On Sep 24, 2013, at 4:21 AM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
> Yaron Sheffer writes:
>> I just reread the introduction of RFC 4945 and I don't understand its
>> purpose. So I'm not sure it should be referenced from 5996bis.
>
> Ok, if there is any disagreement about it, then I think it is better
> to lea
On Sep 24, 2013, at 3:04 PM, Valery Smyslov wrote:
>>> I just reread the introduction of RFC 4945 and I don't understand its
>>> purpose. So I'm not sure it should be referenced from 5996bis.
>>
>> Ok, if there is any disagreement about it, then I think it is better
>> to leave it out from 5996
I just reread the introduction of RFC 4945 and I don't understand its
purpose. So I'm not sure it should be referenced from 5996bis.
Ok, if there is any disagreement about it, then I think it is better
to leave it out from 5996bis.
If we leave it out, than original Yoav's question "is there an
Yaron Sheffer writes:
> I just reread the introduction of RFC 4945 and I don't understand its
> purpose. So I'm not sure it should be referenced from 5996bis.
Ok, if there is any disagreement about it, then I think it is better
to leave it out from 5996bis.
> It is definitely not a "profile" in
