[standards-jig] JEP-115 Redundancy?

Thomas Muldowney 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 mailing list