On 9/6/06, Robert Sayre <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So the definition of "supports universal interoperability" is "I know it when I see it"? Which IETF protocols are universally interoperable? I think of SMTP and HTTP. I also asked you two questions. Here is the second: And why would we put the definition in Brian's document?
Er, my private mail tells me this message might have seemed incredibly offensive to someone who has attended an IETF meeting (I have not). Let me rephrase my objections as follows: 1.) How can such a nebulous definition be acceptable? 2.) Why this document? -- Robert Sayre "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time." _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf