Dieter,
Your message almost has been scrubbed as spam at our provider,
because of the lack of 'normal' content. ("HTML-only" is one
of the most efficient criteria in spam filtering today!)
However, I have managed to 'de-HTLMize' the message ... :-)
Hi Alfred,
could you please explain why multiple <TRACE> objects for
a single interface are needed? I fail to understand what the
application is that requires this.
Thanks,
Dieter
First of all, I would like to refer you to the public errata report,
which -- you might have observed -- is almost 4(!) years old:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4207&presentation=records
I apologize for not having the time to fully re-read RFC 4207 now,
due to current overload, but I hope that the reasoning presented in
the Errata Report in 2005 is still valid. I do not recall all the
details, but I'm quite sure it had not been based on specific
application scenarios, but rather on lack of consistency with other
parts of the RFC. Please check and let me know if something's
wrong there. If there indeed are good arguments against the
conclusion in the Errata Note, the quoted other parts of the RFC
might need reconsideration/clarification instead.
In short: either _all_ parts of the RFC should use plural for
TRACE object(s) in a TraceMonitor Message, or _none_.
Below, I have attached the original report once sent to the
authors of RFC 4207, which did not solicit a response those days
and has been entered later into the new RFC Errata database
by busy beavers at the RFC-Ed...
Kind regards,
Alfred HÎnes.