IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: comments on the architecture document

Noel Chiappa <jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu> Mon, 04 May 1992 22:37 UTC

Received: from nri.nri.reston.va.us by ietf.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04912; 4 May 92 18:37 EDT
Received: from nri.reston.va.us by NRI.Reston.VA.US id ab01250; 4 May 92 18:42 EDT
Received: from PARK-STREET.BBN.COM by NRI.Reston.VA.US id ab01246; 4 May 92 18:42 EDT
Received: from park-street by PARK-STREET.bbn.COM id aa18611; 4 May 92 18:11 EDT
Received: from BBN.COM by PARK-STREET.BBN.COM id aa18607; 4 May 92 18:10 EDT
Received: from GINGER.LCS.MIT.EDU by BBN.COM id aa20324; 4 May 92 18:08 EDT
Received: by ginger.lcs.mit.edu id AA25247; Mon, 4 May 92 18:08:36 -0400
Date: Mon, 4 May 92 18:08:36 -0400
From: Noel Chiappa <jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-Id: <9205042208.AA25247@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>
To: idpr-wg@bbn.com, jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu, yakov@watson.ibm.com
Subject: Re: comments on the architecture document

	I've got better things to do with my time than go through both of
these two documents in two-window mode and investigate whether or not they do
differ significantly. Last time I did this (the IDPR Architecture document,
since you were flaming about it) I came up dry. 
	Perhaps you could do this and post a summary of the significant
protocol changes to the list? Lacking this, I will be happy to take Martha's
word for it that that are not significant.

	Noel

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email