It appears that Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said: >I tend to look at drafts from the perspective of the potential >implementer, placing a premium on interoperability. Documents left on >the shelf to rot (and yes, from the perspective of an ever-changing >environment, they do rot) may be historically interesting, but rarely >foster interoperability with anything other than premature >implementations built using the same obsolete draft. That's what section 3 of the draft addresses. Can you tell us why you think it won't work? R's, John
