Subject: RE: [Seamoby] [CARD Editorial Issue] Standards Language

From: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:07:24 -0500

Well, this is not the first time though. I have seen 
several experimental RFC(s) that used standard language.
For example, look at RFC 2716. BTW, we are willing 
change if required. What others' think?
Regards,
Ajoy 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eunsoo Shim [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 3:41 PM
> To: James Kempf; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Seamoby] [CARD Editorial Issue] Standards Language
> 
> 
> Even though the protocol is not a standard, wouldn't it make 
> the protocol
> clearer?
> 
> Eunsoo
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 2:16 PM
> Subject: [Seamoby] [CARD Editorial Issue] Standards Language
> 
> 
> > This draft is meant to be an experimental RFC. Therefore, 
> it should not
> use
> > standards language (MUST/SHALL, etc.).
> >
> >             jak
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Seamoby mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Seamoby mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
> 

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