Re: Oughtification of Section 5

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Bill Davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com)
Date: Tue Jan 23 2001 - 17:23:16 CST


chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) wrote:

> In <20010122095719.D53504@demon.net> "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net> writes:
>
> >I've completely lost track what wording we're arguing about. Could someone
> >please repost it, after which could Brad please post the changes that would
> >make him happy ?
>
> Officially, we are discussing what goes in the tail part of the Path, and
> whether it should duplicate some information in the Injector-Info header.

  I can't believe that I'm defending Brad's position, but the topic I
see is the proposal that the (currently unused) tail of the Path be used
*instead* of the Injector-info.

  To the extent that I agree that we have way too many headers with one
item of trace information per line, I support this. I still favor a
single trace info header, similar in concept to X_Trace, absent support
for that, I am settling for of proposals to avoid adding new header
lines which are another kind of trace information.

-- 
   -bill davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
 last possible moment - but no longer"  -me


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29.