To:
"'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info>
Date:
Wed, 24 Jul 2002 08:15:40 -0400
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60189BCA3@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com>; from shollenbeck@verisign.com on Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 07:13:46AM -0400
Mail-Followup-To:
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info>,"'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.2.5i
Subject:
Re: Proposed Document Changes
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 07:13:46AM -0400, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>
> Last command completed, which might not have anything to do with a session.
[. . .]
> This is a good time to agree or disagree, folks. Is the <status> command
> really needed or not?
It seems to me that the apparent confusion over sessions and the
<status> command shows that the command is going to be of limited
value. I don't have strong feelings about it, but I now suspect it's
going to be confusing to a lot of people who will discover that it
won't work as they expect.
Andrew
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3
+1 416 646 3304 x110