[standards-jig] JEP-115 Redundancy?
temas at box5.net
Wed Sep 24 18:10:54 UTC 2003
I'm reading JEP-115 and section 4.2 seems very redundant to me. It
seems that you are using disco, to do disco, but no actually as disco?
Confused? That's how I felt reading it. Why are capabilities being
sent seperate of an actual disco request/reply? Is there are reason we
have to be able to send capabilities in regular disco replies and as a
capablities list to the seperate namespace? Reading again tonight for
further comprehension and more comments.
More information about the Standards