Re: draft-ietf-impp-im-01 (was: Re: WG Last Call on multiple docu ments (deadline Jan 12))

Mark,

Ok.  So...

Since a common end-to-end content syntax is the explicit goal then it makes
no sense for the spec to make a common end-to-end syntax be optional.

That means it needs to be a MUST.

d/

Thursday, January 9, 2003, 6:48:55 AM, you wrote:
>> I took that rough consensus to mean that we are now doing a service
>> that has end-to-end homogeneity for content.  (To fall back on my
>> usual references to email:  we are standardizing an equivalent to
>> RFC822,  but not RFC821, though we ARE also standardizing the core
>> semantics of a transfer service.)

Mark> I believe this is correct and a helpful analogy.

Mark> I hope this sounds like I'm agreeing with you, because that's what I mean to
Mark> do.

d/
-- 
 Dave <mailto:[email protected]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850




  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]