Subject: RE: [midcom] Delete R48?

From: "Sanjoy Sen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 10:52:15 -0500

If you're implying that the "actions" will be carried as a protocol element
then I'm with you.
Sanjoy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 7:35 AM
> To: Sen, Sanjoy [NGB:B602:EXCH]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [midcom] Delete R48?
> 
> 
> At 02:51 PM 8/20/01 -0500, Sanjoy Sen wrote:
> >        Most of us agreed that we need to have two parts to 
> describe a pinhole - a "descriptor" and "actions". According 
> to Paul's email, R48 can be a placeholder for the "actions" 
> part. If we're going to subsume both these parts under 
> pinhole definition (TBD), then R48 is redundant. 
> 
> I'm a little unclear on why the protocol itself is insufficient to
> describe actions.
> 
> Melinda
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> midcom mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom
>