[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Megaco] Spelling the long form of AC

To: "'Raphael Tryster'" <raphael@tdsoft.com>, "'megaco@ietf.org'" <megaco@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [Megaco] Spelling the long form of AC
From: "Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@marconi.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:34:33 -0500
List-help: <mailto:megaco-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: Media Gateway Control <megaco.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:megaco@ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco>,<mailto:megaco-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco>,<mailto:megaco-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: megaco-admin@ietf.org

Title: Spelling the long form of AC

Guilty as charged. AuditCapability should be used consistently I think.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Raphael Tryster [mailto:raphael@tdsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 5:39 AM
To: 'megaco@ietf.org'
Subject: [Megaco] Spelling the long form of AC

Is there an error in RFC 3015 and all its updates, or is there just one command whose name (AuditCapabilities) is different from its long spelling (AuditCapability)?

Raphael Tryster

Prev by Date: RE: [Megaco] (no subject)
Next by Date: RE: [Megaco] Notifying errors in Transaction Reply/Pending
Previous by thread: [Megaco] Spelling the long form of AC
Next by thread: [Megaco] MGCP 1.0bis published as RFC 3435
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread