[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: users and connections definitions
>> We all assume various levels of background info in our writing, and
>> not all of it is on-line.
>Maybe you do, but don't include me. I like well-defined RFCs.
For someone who purports to like well-defined (and presumably well-written)
RFCs, the long series of Photuris I-Ds hardly serve as examplars.
>> Actually, I think the PSRG I-D was well written, but did not advance
>> because other matters were a higher priority. But, feel free to judge for
>> you self. I'm sending an MS Word file that reproduces the essence of this
>> work, in a newly edited form, that Rob Shirey developed for puiblication
>> last year, via a separate message to you.
>I wondered what that 356 KB message was. Since I don't own MS Word,
>it's worse than useless, and I can safely toss it. Thanks, anyway, and
>let us know when the I-D comes out....
I'll check with my co-author and see if he'd like to submit the document as
an informational RFC, although the re-formatting effort argues against
that. In your case I'd suggest holding your breath.