To:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>
Date:
Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:44:33 -0400
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07CFF990@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Mail-Followup-To:
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>,ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Reply-To:
Andrew Sullivan <andrew@ca.afilias.info>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.5.9i
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] 3730 <poll> Text Change Proposal
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 07:09:50AM -0400, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>
> Didn't you yourself suggest a SHOULD?:
I did (although I regret it in retrospect). But as I said, I don't
object.
>
> "Other methods of server-client action notification, such as offline
> reporting, are also
> possible and are beyond the scope of this specification."
>
> The text in 2.9.2.3 exists to let people know that they can deal with
> clients that don't retrieve queued messages however they wish.
> Something to make that clear really should remain in the document.
Ok, I see that. I don't have a strong opinion here, either.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@ca.afilias.info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x4110