Subject: RE: [Diffserv] Yesterday's EF discussion

From: Jon Bennett <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:29:39 -0500

Brian,

> Jon, just an (obvious) point  of clarification: RFC 2598 will not go
> away - it will stay there for ever, presumably marked in the index as
> (Obsoleted by RFCxxxx). 

Question to the chair, given that I said our intentions were "to obsolete
RFC 2598" what was it that you were clarifying?  Or were you just worried I
didn't know 'to obsolete' meant?

> Your preference for not changing the name is noted.

Thank you for taking note of my opinion.

jon 

_______________________________________________
diffserv mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
Archive: http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist.html

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:49:30 -0600

Jon,

> didn't know 'to obsolete' meant?

This snip from your earlier note seemed to me to suggest that you thought
I might be suggesting *not* to obsolete 2598, which was not what I meant
to imply:

  "I submit that leaving RFC 2598 unchanged as
   the EF PHB and introducing draft-charny as the FOO PHB besides violating the
   WG charter is simply to ignore the consensus of the room." 

  Brian