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

Re: #1028 USEFOR 3.1.2 Date: Resolved, I think.

To: ietf-usefor@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: #1028 USEFOR 3.1.2 Date: Resolved, I think.
From: Bruce Lilly <blilly@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 07:44:12 -0400
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-usefor.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Organization: Bruce Lilly
References: <>
Reply-to: ietf-usefor@xxxxxxx
Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.8.1

On Fri July 1 2005 01:28, Henry Spencer wrote:

> Backward compatibility is a technical issue, not a compliance issue.  It
> does not require us to permanently endorse every old mistake, only to
> provide a transition path, so that software can move toward future full
> compliance while remaining interoperable with the old mistakes for now. 

Which is what my proposed text does, as everyone can see 
from my previous postings.

References:
- Re: #1028 USEFOR 3.1.2 Date: Resolved, I think.
  - From: Henry Spencer

Prev by Date: Re: #1047 Path-identity: A proposal (perhaps)
Next by Date: Re: #1047 Path-identity: A proposal (perhaps)
Previous by thread: Re: #1028 USEFOR 3.1.2 Date: Resolved, I think.
Next by thread: Re: #1028 USEFOR 3.1.2 Date: Resolved, I think.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread