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

Re: SASL WG session at IETF67

To: Tom Yu <tlyu@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: SASL WG session at IETF67
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:39:47 +0100
Cc: ietf-sasl@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <ldvvenstz49.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-sasl/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-sasl.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-sasl-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <ldv4pvm1411.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <ldvvenstz49.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-ietf-sasl@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915


Tom Yu wrote:

I've added emu and calsify to the first-priority conflicts list.  I've
noticed that msec, capwap, and btns list us in their conflict lists.
Do people think we should reciprocate those conflicts?

Maybe as second-priority conflicts?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: SASL WG session at IETF67
  - From: Jeffrey Hutzelman

References:
- SASL WG session at IETF67
  - From: Tom Yu
- Re: SASL WG session at IETF67
  - From: Tom Yu

Prev by Date: Re: SASL WG session at IETF67
Next by Date: Re: SASL WG session at IETF67
Previous by thread: Re: SASL WG session at IETF67
Next by thread: Re: SASL WG session at IETF67
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread