- From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:58:49 -0500
- To: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-01-21 15:42 , "John Arwe" <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> wrote: >>that seems like something that's completely out of scope of the LDP >> protocol. yes, there may be constraints on payload, but defining and >> enforcing those should now be something LDP is concerned with. >typo? was now or not the intent? >It's a "somewhat plausible" read either way, although my instinct is that >'not' was the intent [LDP is/should not be concerned with validation]Best >Regards, John indeed, a very bad typo. "there may be constraints on payload, but defining and enforcing those should not be something LDP is concerned with." thanks for catching this! cheers, dret.
Received on Monday, 21 January 2013 14:59:36 UTC