[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Arofan's RT/CCT Draft Definitions
-----Original Message-----These also cross over the comments the LCSC are submitting as well. it may be smarter to co-ordinate with one set of UBL comments.
From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 5:01 PM
To: Burcham, Bill
Cc: ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Arofan's RT/CCT Draft Definitions
i am concerned we may give them mixed messages - when we should be clear on our position
Burcham, Bill wrote:
40AC2C8FB855D411AE0200D0B7458B2B07344D36@scidalmsg01.csg.stercomm.com type="cite">I agree with just about everything Arofan says here right down to the very end where he makes the point about the terms being backward (that RT and CCT should properly be reversed). It was informative to finally hear such a lucid explanation of the history behind these two constructs. If we could get this sorted out to the satisfaction of UBL and CC folks this would be a huge step forward.
<munch>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC