Re: One last nit

Steve Coya <scoya@CNRI.Reston.VA.US> Fri, 17 March 1995 21:19 UTC

To: John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net>
cc: iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: Re: One last nit
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 17 Mar 95 16:14:40 EST." <01HO8YOHGWW2000BP5@MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.NET>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 16:19:09 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Steve Coya <scoya@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
Message-ID: <9503171619.aa08989@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US>

>> I'd argue for "back to normal", i.e., the relevant AD should stand
>> up and tell us what should be done with this.

Now that I think about it, and Steve Nahm's response to Vint, perhaps
we ought to wait until the agreement has been signed by BOTH parties!

One last nit Claudio Topolcic
Re: One last nit God Almighty
Re: One last nit Jeffrey I. Schiller
Re: One last nit Scott Bradner
Re: One last nit John C Klensin
Re: God, etc.... Mike O'Dell
Re: One last nit Joel Halpern
Re: One last nit Steve Coya
Re: One last nit Claudio Topolcic
Re: One last nit Steve Coya
Re: One last nit Claudio Topolcic
Re: One last nit John C Klensin
Re: One last nit John C Klensin
Re: One last nit Steve Coya
Re: One last nit Steve Coya
Re: One last nit John C Klensin
Re: One last nit Steve Coya
Re: One last nit Scott Bradner