On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 03:53:12PM -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
> As we've discussed privately, this seems to be a relatively straightforward
> trade-off between cleanliness of the design versus number of tables that
> IANA will have to maintain. But by straightforward, I mean that
> understandi
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I will note that I sort of hate the approach outlined in section 3 in
the draft as written. In the current form, we have a table that
either has a value in the subordinate field, _or_ a value in the RR
field; in either case, the other field has to be NULL. If I put on m
Dear colleagues,
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 01:58:37PM -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Nonetheless since we are in the midst of IETF week, I'd like to ask whether
> anyone has interest in talking about this sometime during the week.
I think the draft is probably needed, because we already see two
dif
Folks,
From what I've seen, there have not been any postings on this wg topic.
Nonetheless since we are in the midst of IETF week, I'd like to ask whether
anyone has interest in talking about this sometime during the week.
d/
Dave Crocker wrote:
> This is revised based on original presenta
