[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: going forward

Bill,

	It's good of you to be so polite in waiting for the rest of us
to catch up, even if catching up means that we have to find other
rationales for mechanisms that were poorly argued for the first time
around.  By the way, my recommendation for including sequence numbers
goes back to eraly this year, or late 1994, in a lengthy message that
received no responses.  So don't discuss this as though I made the
recommendation (with a different rationale) only recently.

	As for your comments re AH, you seem to have a short term
memory problem.  My message pointed out the two different data regions
cofered by AH and your response was a resounding "huh?"  So, I quoted
the basis for my comment, only to have you respond with a "Oh, sure,
what's wrong with that" rejoinder.  I'm not the only member of this
list to suggest that the specs could be improved by this change.
While you are right that it would have been preferable to make a
chaneg like this prior to publication of the RFCs, my comments one the
I-Ds arrived about a week too late for that.

	As for my the progress of "my" implementation, well, I don't
write code so there is no progress to report on that front.  I'm one
of the folks who still believes that its better to analyze the specs
and get them right, using implementation experience to refine them,
rather than letting implementation experience drive the specs.  So,
each of us has a way to contribute to the specification process.

Steve
References: