Re: [idn] Overspecifications in draft-ietf-idn-requirements-08

["James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

I would say more likely the door is already closed on requirements since
we already move it forward. But you never know what would happen...

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Hopwood" <david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk>
To: <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 3:09 AM
Subject: Re: [idn] Overspecifications in draft-ietf-idn-requirements-08


> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> I see that there have been no comments on my suggested changes to
> draft-ietf-idn-requirements-08.txt. Is that because no-one disagrees
> with them, or because no-one has looked at them closely?
>
> - --
> David Hopwood <david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk>
>
> Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/
> RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5  0F 69 8C D4 FA 66
15 01
> Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I revoke
a
> public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key
has been
> seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see
www.fipr.org/rip
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.3i
> Charset: noconv
>
> iQEVAwUBO8ScyjkCAxeYt5gVAQEgDwgAkmM6xPhGv9vaAnijZRxbdYRKpBEZ6Ov6
> Cc/9oRI3twCicIpaCRvSg3Glwj9kyGEZNcLKN9Mn6nE2rboSviEM7gL1THk8gBbd
> +wf2bNAFGlJgQufMvQDIJevEYAKQARdH6xki5d6kqncY1NPcRl2PaTozrjTWv/t7
> TZ+r5IGMJMu33GuLKMIx5/TYf8QQvRHEY1uj0q2zOCqE4o2SA6VF5INvJdh1b4io
> ywSvbZYxW6z9wqrpKHz2zKOLK+a3Vqu2ChplMWn2+QucdFP4QTKmn1dawkVssj3R
> wHx0P1w3ESRrH0og1w/nrDTZioYkT6y2N9RxZoKuLzopdumbA3Wyvw==
> =eD2A
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>