Reply to editorial comments to routing document
"Kevin E. Jordan" <Kevin.E.Jordan@cdc.com> Mon, 04 July 1994 15:15 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02577; 4 Jul 94 11:15 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02573; 4 Jul 94 11:15 EDT
Received: from mercury91.udev.cdc.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06130; 4 Jul 94 11:15 EDT
Received: by mercury.udev.cdc.com; Mon, 4 Jul 94 10:15:10 -0500
X-From: kej@mercury.udev.cdc.com Mon Jul 4 10:15 CDT 1994
Received: from localhost by mercury.udev.cdc.com; Mon, 4 Jul 94 10:15:07 -0500
To: Steve Kille <S.Kille@isode.com>
cc: Allan Cargille <cargille@cs.wisc.edu>, mhs-ds@mercury.udev.cdc.com
Subject: Reply to editorial comments to routing document
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 04 Jul 94 12:56:24 BST" <8427.773322984@glengoyne.isode.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 1994 10:15:06 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "Kevin E. Jordan" <Kevin.E.Jordan@cdc.com>
Message-Id: <2e18277b5880002@mercury.udev.cdc.com>
> Supplementary info bounds. This is set to 256. You say that Kevin > says that it is 128 in 84. While 84 does not specify lengths, a > number of profiles do. Is there an issue which needs to be addressed > in this document (as opposed to a downgrading spec?) Actually, the '84 profiles with which I am familiar restrict the length even more severely, to a maximum of 64 characters. I do not think that we should allow an '84 profile to constrain an MHS-DS specification, especially when the '88 standard defines a larger or different limit. I agree that this type of difference between '84 and '88 should be resolved in a downgrading spec.
- editorial comments to routing document Allan Cargille
- Re: editorial comments to routing document Steve Kille
- Reply to editorial comments to routing document Kevin E. Jordan
- Reply to editorial comments to routing document Kevin E. Jordan