> -----Original Message----- > From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 11:28 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: -protocol: transport mappings > > > Given that state of the discussion, I propose that we actually require > each implementation that talks to a transport MUST support the > to-be-written UDP transport mapping.
I disagree with this on principle. This "that talks to a transport" crappy-little-rule is being done to accommodate a vendor-specific implementation issue. It has nothing to do with the on-the-wire standard we are developing. It has no place in the standard. > > I would appreciate if those experienced with these issues could let me > know their qualified votes. We don't vote in the IETF, but I'd be willing to hum for a separate document ;-) Seriously, as long as the document is not likely to get bogged down in tar-pit discussions, it is unlikely to hold up progress of documents that depend on it. Since it appears to be a very simple and straightforward document, I expect it would have no impact on the advancement of the -protocol document. Dbh
