see inline,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Cooper [mailto:ian@the-coopers.org]
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 4:07 PM
> To: Barbir, Abbie [CAR:1A00:EXCH]; cdn@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: CNAP - very quick comment
<snip>
> >>
> >> 1) You only consider IPv4; no way will this fly far if that's
> >> the case.
> >>
> > -- this should not be the case
>
> Abbie, I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or suggesting
> that the draft
> says something else...
i am agreeing with u here
> >
> > -- point well taken, i believe that there is an editor note on that.
>
> Not too sure. I can see some other comments in other
> sections of the draft
> that point at a lot of things that need to be defined, but
> nothing close to
> the ABNF that I was referring to.
>
> And while this is obviously a very drafty draft I can sense possible
> confusion in saying it's a "text-based" protocol and yet also
> saying some
> field are a certain number of bits long.
>
yes u r right there, this will be addressed during/after the ietf meeting.
please keep in mind that this is a very very drafty draft
abbie