[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: RFC 2255bis

"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:
> 
> At 10:38 AM 10/25/00 -0400, Mark C Smith wrote:
> >What I am thinking about is moving some of the information about which
> >components of the URL are required and not allowed and the defaulting
> >rules into subsections that are specific to each of the above
> >scenarios.  Comments?
> 
> One approach would be to define "general" defaulting rules
> which apply in lieu of more specific defaulting rules mandated
> for specific uses as detailed in other documents (such as
> RFC2251bis).

That is a good suggestion.


> I suggest we avoid enumerating "other uses" but clearly
> indicate that they are allowed.

I agree.  I'll cook up some text and include it in a revised I-D.

-Mark