Hi,
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 11:55:04AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Given the discussion later in this thread, the definitions seem still
> to need more work. I'll try to put final proposed text together.
> I've opened issue 20 for this.
On the basis of the text in the thread, I have put the
Dear colleagues,
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:34:29PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 07:25:53PM -0700, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> > address. So, it's not "in use within a range, and referenced in a
> > forward mapping". Does this mean this address is not covered by the
Hello,
I'm sorry it's taken me so long to come back to this. I have had a
hard time coming up with a proposed alteration that addresses exactly
your point.
On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 05:18:27PM -0700, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> A. it's unfair. If this is based on the spirit of "reciprocity"
>
