Subject: RE: [Simple] RE: draft-lonnfors-simple-binpidf-00.txt

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 12:57:45 -0500

My personal preference is the indirect approach, if for no
other reason than the fact that it requires less specification.

/a

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 2:44
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Simple] RE: draft-lonnfors-simple-binpidf-00.txt
> 
> 
> Actually, we put both solutions in for discussion purposes 
> and to get consensus from the list on which is a better 
> solution, before we settle for one.
> 
> We should have mentioned this in the draft, my apologies.
> 
> Which is your favourite? Direct link reduces the overall 
> message size, but indirect link in a cleaner solution.
> 
> Regards,
> Hisham
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext Adam Roach [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 9:04 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: [Simple] RE: draft-lonnfors-simple-binpidf-00.txt
> > 
> > 
> > I have one minor comment on the current binpidf draft.
> > 
> > It's not clear what the motivation for having both
> > direct and indirect links to external content are.
> > The rationale for having multiple ways to do it
> > should probably be discussed in the document. In
> > particular, it would probably be worthwhile to
> > explicitly provide an analysis of why the flexibility
> > is worth the additional code that implementors
> > will need to write to support both modes of operation.
> > 
> > /a
> > _______________________________________________
> > Simple mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
> > 
> 
_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple