Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-http-hit-metering-04.txt

• From: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
• Date: Thu, 16 Oct 97 10:14:27 MDT
• To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
• Message-Id: <9710161714.AA20121@acetes.pa.dec.com>

Before anyone wastes their time reading this new draft of the
hit-metering document, I should point out that the ONLY change
in this draft (relative to draft-ietf-http-hit-metering-03.txt)
is the inclusion of this statement (in the "Terminology" section):

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHOULD", SHOULD NOT",
   "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be
   interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].

at the request of the IESG (and the consequential renumbering of
the bibliography, since "Bradner" sorts before all of other cited
authors.)

I should have updated one or two of the other references when I
had the chance, but I guess this can be done when the document
reaches the RFC stage.

-Jeff

Received on Thursday, 16 October 1997 10:21:17 UTC