Subject: RE: [midcom] Delete R48?

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 08:35:14 -0400

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