Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Proposal on Sync/NoSync Requirement

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 01:01:22 +0300

Hi James,

> "Out of scope" is typically WG charter language. I know the 
> SHOULD/SHOULD NOT sounds a bit funny, but I think we need to
> express this in a way that is more requirements language.

Then how about changing:

      ... the CT solution need
      not support it, but it should not provide a hinderance to those feature contexts
      that do.

to:
      ... the CT solution is not requireed to directly support synchronization, but
      may support simple methods for the synchronization context for feature contexts
      that do.

John

_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 15:51:35 -0700

That sounds better.

            jak

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 15:51:35 -0700

That sounds better.

            jak