On 2017 Jan 29 13:06:18, you wrote to me:

 WV>>> Why not just use the FTS-0001 notation: ' = "00" | .. | "59" '.
 WV>>> Isn't that clear enough?

 ml>> if you're talking about seconds, it is wrong ;)

 NB> Yes. FTS-0001 is wrong in this regard. So since I'm supposed to
 NB> reference FTS-0001, I did.

where does it say that you are supposed to do that?? just like expiration tags
on your toes, there's nothing in the FTSC that says you have to reference
FTS-0001... this document is a clarification of all three packets and how their
data is different... if stephen has his document completed with the last round
of adjustments, perhaps you could get that from him and present it instead of
wading into all of this again and changing it from what he had done with all of
his work on it...

 NB> I don't suppose I can change this proposal to reflect anything else
 NB> until FTS-0001 is corrected, then?

since randy bush has refused to give up his copyright on FTS-0001, it won't
ever be updated but that doesn't mean that other documentation has to also be
wrong... hell, look at what FSC-0048 does to FSC-0039... there are other
similar documents that also give hints and perspectives on ways to work with
different documents that may appear to have conflicting information...

)\/(ark

Always Mount a Scratch Monkey
Do you manage your own servers? If you are not running an IDS/IPS yer doin' it
wrong...
... Next time there's a war in Europe, the loser keeps France.
---