To: Edward Lewis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
cc: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <email@example.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:22:17 -0500
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:18:27 EST." <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: side bar, was Re: [ietf-provreg] Our "Privacy Issue"
Dear Co-Chair of the PROVREG WG (and all around nice guy Ed Lewis), I have no angst. I am quite content that no working group, in particular, the PROVREG WG, has any interest in some drafts published as individual contributions. Just to be degenerate, which comes easily to me, and get to some core issues of ordering, reliability, and who is the author of requirements... EBW sez <check bar> <check bar> <check bar> contains no fewer than zero, and possibly as many as one, maybe even three, instances of the operation "check" on the operand "bar", which might be ordered, and the temporal bounds on delivery are ... "best effort", or weaker. PAF sez <check bar> <check bar> <check bar> contains exactly three, ordered instances of the operation "check" on the operand "bar", and the temporal bounds on delivery are ... "web time", an odd bit of transactional real-time. EBW sez for some things, it matters, for some things, it don't. PAF sez for all things, it matters equally. That disposes of epp/smtp, epp/udp, epp/http, epp/uucp, and of course epp/avian-transport (only a few days until that one, neh?). This is all done, my concern with the present question fits fairly neatly into two questions. I can wait till they're answered, or ... expire. Eric