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

Re: FW: RFC-to-be: <draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt>

To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Subject: Re: FW: RFC-to-be: <draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 09:23:17 -0800
Cc: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, "Iesg (E-mail)" <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155BAEA8A@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com><582540458.1043669743@localhost>

> I think overloading names of codepoints (which need to be identifiers 
> reminding people of function) with semantics of registration function, 
> standard they belong to and area of usefulness is a silly idea that should 
> be nipped in the bud.

programming 101

References:
- FW: RFC-to-be: <draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt>
  - From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
- Re: FW: RFC-to-be: <draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt>
  - From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>

Prev by Date: Re: Why MTA-level black listing bites [Fwd: NOTICE: mail delivery status.]
Next by Date: re:RFC-to-be: draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04
Previous by thread: Re: FW: RFC-to-be: <draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt>
Next by thread: RE: FW: RFC-to-be: <draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt>
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread