(response to) comments on the draft...
petercon at microsoft.com
Sat Jun 12 17:35:40 CEST 2004
> From: Addison Phillips [wM] [mailto:aphillips at webmethods.com]
> Some changes have been made to the editor's draft
Well done. I reviewed changes that were made, and could not detect in
the revised wording where concerns might have existed previously.
You have not yet responded to my comments / questions regarding the
extension mechanism (which I raised several months ago, btw). I would
Are there anticipated future protocols this is being created for? If so,
why is every process or protocol that will use this RFC to be required
to support mechanisms used by distinct protocols that lie outside this
RFC, rather than defining the mechanisms in those derivative protocols?
More information about the Ietf-languages