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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:43:31 +0300

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