Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD
Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> Fri, 28 July 2000 16:31 UTC
Received: from cs.utk.edu (CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.94.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04353 for <drums-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:31:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA26278; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:30:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.13); Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:30:58 -0400
Received: by cs.utk.edu (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA26261; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:30:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (marvin@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA26244; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:30:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (128.169.93.168 -> ASTRO.CS.UTK.EDU) by cs.utk.edu (smtpshim v1.0); Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:30:56 -0400
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA05688; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:30:54 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200007281630.MAA05688@astro.cs.utk.edu>
X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
cc: drums@cs.utk.edu, sob@harvard.edu
Subject: Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD
In-reply-to: Your message of "28 Jul 2000 14:40:41 -0000." <20000728144041.2983.qmail@cr.yp.to>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:30:54 -0400
Sender: moore@cs.utk.edu
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:drums-request@cs.utk.edu?Subject=unsubscribe>
> > as Dan pointed out, there is language in 2119 (specifically > > section 6) that over-constrains use of 2119. > > That's not what I said. I stand corrected. sorry to put words in your mouth. Keith
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Charles Lindsey
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Nick Shelness/SSW/Lotus
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Keith Moore
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD D. J. Bernstein
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Michael Scharff
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Bart Schaefer
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Keith Moore
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Barry Finkel
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Keith Moore
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Charles Lindsey
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Kai Henningsen
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Robert Elz
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Dave Crocker
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Charles Lindsey
- Re: history of using a comment for display-name? Eric Allman