Re: Back to terminology

From: Randall Gellens ^lt;rg+ietf@qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue Feb 19 2002 - 19:11:52 EST

At 6:55 PM -0500 2/19/02, Adam Shostack wrote:

>I think that we need to "deal with the problem" by documenting a
>requirement.

I agree.
Received on Tue Feb 19 19:15:02 2002

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Randall Gellens: "RE: Back to terminology"
Previous message: Randy Bush: "RE: Back to terminology"
In reply to: Adam Shostack: "Re: Back to terminology"
Next in thread: Randy Bush: "RE: Back to terminology"

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ By Date ] [ By Thread ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ] [ By messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 22 2004 - 12:32:22 EST