Subject: Re: iTIP updates

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:10:18 -0500

John suggested:
>So maybe all we need to do is widen the cases where we increase
>the sequence number, but not add new methods?

It would greatly help this discussion if those that had 
issues/concerns/solutions could post them to the list so that everyone can 
mull them over.  Preferably BEFORE San Diego since Im betting this is 
gonna take up some big chunk of time to cover.

Sounds like John has some ideas... 

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: [email-masked]
Iris Associates                          Phone: 978.392.5335
Westford, MA, USA 01886                    FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 16:22:19 -0500

[email-masked] wrote:

> issues/concerns/solutions could post them to the list so that
> everyone can mull them over.  Preferably BEFORE San Diego since
> Im betting this is gonna take up some big chunk of time to
> cover.
>

Not specifically; I was just trying to offer a middle path.

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Never mind the GUIs--Unix won't be for the   |
[email-masked]|masses until we fix backspace & delete.      |
\==============================================================/