[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 2822upd-04 section 1 vs. section 4.1 discrepancy

To: ietf-822@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: 2822upd-04 section 1 vs. section 4.1 discrepancy
From: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:11:59 +0100
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-822/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-822.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-822-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Organization: <http://purl.net/xyzzy>
References: <200801262208.12565@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <>
Reply-to: "Frank Ellermann" <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-ietf-822@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Pete Resnick wrote:

>> I suggest eliding the sentence in the note in section
>> 4.1 which begins with "In the future,".
 
> I just noticed that the other day myself. Happy to have
> confirmation of my gut reaction to it. Will delete.

Good, IIRC this detail alone took USEFOR several weeks.

 Frank

Follow-Ups:
- Re: 2822upd-04 section 1 vs. section 4.1 discrepancy
  - From: Charles Lindsey

References:
- 2822upd-04 section 1 vs. section 4.1 discrepancy
  - From: Bruce Lilly
- Re: 2822upd-04 section 1 vs. section 4.1 discrepancy
  - From: Pete Resnick

Prev by Date: Re: 2822upd-04 line length limits
Next by Date: Re: 2822upd-04 line length limits
Previous by thread: Re: 2822upd-04 section 1 vs. section 4.1 discrepancy
Next by thread: Re: 2822upd-04 section 1 vs. section 4.1 discrepancy
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread