# Re: generic IESG comments

Dave Crocker (dcrocker@mordor.stanford.edu)
Fri, 4 Nov 1994 07:47:21 -0800

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Erik Huizer: "Re: generic IESG comments"
- Previous message: Erik Huizer: "Re: generic IESG comments"
- Maybe in reply to: Erik Huizer: "generic IESG comments"
- Next in thread: Erik Huizer: "Re: generic IESG comments"
- Reply: Erik Huizer: "Re: generic IESG comments"

    Message-Id: <v03000504aae0068742f3@[128.102.17.23]>

    Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 07:47:21 -0800

    To: "Erik Huizer (SURFnet BV)" <Erik.Huizer@surfnet.nl>

    From: dcrocker@mordor.stanford.edu (Dave Crocker)

    Subject: Re: generic IESG comments

Erik,

Many thanks for the clarification. Mostly, it makes sense to me and seems
reasonable.

But since I've already chosen to be a pain, let me ask a question that
explores a worst-case scenario:

Let's say that there has been little or no progress in solving these
requirements in the next 6 months, and that the base URL specification has
proved just fine in describing current practise. Does that mean that the
URL spec will not be advanced? I don't understand how to fit this scenario
in accepted IETF practise.

Again, thanks for the quick response and clarification.

d/

--------------------
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg Consulting Phone: +1 408 246 8253
675 Spruce Dr. Fax: +1 408 249 6205
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Email: dcrocker@mordor.stanford.edu

- Next message: Erik Huizer: "Re: generic IESG comments"
- Previous message: Erik Huizer: "Re: generic IESG comments"
- Maybe in reply to: Erik Huizer: "generic IESG comments"
- Next in thread: Erik Huizer: "Re: generic IESG comments"
- Reply: Erik Huizer: "Re: generic IESG comments"