Subject: spec names (was: missing method)

From: Michael Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 13:45:02 -0400

At 09:31 AM 5/5/99 -0700, Mike Eisler <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Since there are now two competing java bindings i-ds perhaps the respective
>authors of each could agree to name them uniquely, sort of how in the IPSEC wg
>had competing key management protocols called isakmp, oakely, photuris, skip,
>and others that I'm probably forgetting. 

Makes sense. How about "classes spec" (Jack's) and "interfaces spec"
(mine)?

--Michael Smith
  [email-masked]

==========================================================================
This message was posted through the Stanford campus mailing list
server.  If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the
message body of "unsubscribe ietf-cat-wg" to [email-masked]

---

From: Mike Eisler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 10:49:17 -0700 (PDT)

> >authors of each could agree to name them uniquely, sort of how in the IPSEC
> wg >had competing key management protocols called isakmp, oakely, photuris,
> skip, >and others that I'm probably forgetting. 
> 

No because Jack has agreed to produce an interface based
specification per the feedback from the Minneapolis wg, and
so we'll (soon hopefully_ have two interface based specifications.

	-mre