[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.


Follow-Ups: References: