On 5/3/07, Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am sorry if I was unclear. I am on both lists and understand their
> diffrences.
No, you are confusing [EMAIL PROTECTED] with [EMAIL PROTECTED]
They are not the same. The first has nothing to do with the IETF and
can't care much about wha
Eric Klein wrote:
[..]
> I am sorry if I was unclear. I am on both lists and understand their
> diffrences.
No, you are confusing [EMAIL PROTECTED] with [EMAIL PROTECTED]
They are not the same. The first has nothing to do with the IETF and
can't care much about what the IETF will decide, they will
On May 3, 2007, at 5:41 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At Thu, 3 May 2007 13:41:12 +0200,
Ebalard, Arnaud wrote:
Le 1 mai 07 à 23:18, George V. Neville-Neil a écrit :
Actually I like this solution.
Now, not to beat a dead horse more, but when can a draft be set
up to
talk about this?
At Thu, 3 May 2007 13:41:12 +0200,
Ebalard, Arnaud wrote:
>
>
> Le 1 mai 07 à 23:18, George V. Neville-Neil a écrit :
>
> > Actually I like this solution.
> >
> > Now, not to beat a dead horse more, but when can a draft be set up to
> > talk about this?
>
> I would already have pushed a submi
Le 1 mai 07 à 23:18, George V. Neville-Neil a écrit :
> Actually I like this solution.
>
> Now, not to beat a dead horse more, but when can a draft be set up to
> talk about this?
I would already have pushed a submission but I'm not familiar with
the associated IETF process. I suspect it will
