IR 2064

From: Ajayharsh Varikat <ajay_at_.....>
Date: Thu Mar 10 2005 - 05:47:37 PST

The intent in the LRM looks obvious to me, and I agree with the
analysis. Personally, I am not even convinced there is a need to 
change the wording. 

-ajay


----- Begin Included Message -----

Received on Thu Mar 10 05:47:48 2005

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Chuck Swart: "ISAC: New IR 2066"
Previous message: Chuck Swart: "ISAC: IRs 2042, 2048 and 2051 have passed."
Next in thread: Peter Ashenden: "RE: IR 2064"
Reply: Peter Ashenden: "RE: IR 2064"
Maybe reply: Peter Ashenden: "FW: IR 2064"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ By Date ] [ By Thread ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ] [ By messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 10 2005 - 05:47:49 PST