Subject: RE: [Ecrit] Requirements Issue 38 - MA5

From: "Roger Marshall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:00:01 -0700

Marc:
Thanks for this contribution.  I think the reworded version makes more
sense.  My plan is to go ahead and add it to the next requirements
draft, as written.

Roger Marshall.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marc Linsner [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:43 AM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [Ecrit] Requirements Issue 38 - MA5
>
>In an attempt to clear up the complaint that this req. doesn't 
>contain enough information.
>
>Current:
>
>Ma5.  URI alternate contact: The mapping protocol MUST support 
>the return of a URI or contact method explicitly marked as an 
>alternate contact.
>
>Motivation: In response to a mapping request, the mapping 
>server may return an alternate URI.  Implementation details to 
>be described within an operational document.
>
>Proposed:
>
>Ma5.  URI alternate contact: In addition to returning a 
>primary contact, the mapping protocol MUST support the return 
>of a URI or contact method explicitly marked as an alternate contact.
>
>Motivation: In response to a mapping request, the mapping 
>server may return an alternate URI.  Implementation details to 
>be described within an operational document.
>
>
>
>Comments?
>
>-Marc-
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ecrit mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit