Re: ULE Extension Headers

["HDClausen" <clausen@cosy.sbg.ac.at>]

I strongly support b).
--Horst

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Allison, Art" <AAllison@nab.org>
To: <ip-dvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 11:33 AM
Subject: RE: ULE Extension Headers


> Thank you for the clarification. Someone once said a journey... begins
with
> a small step. Selecting b would be at least a small step.
>
> Gorry, I hope you are counting<smile>.
>
> Art
> ::{)>
> Art Allison
> Director Advanced Engineering
> NAB
> 1771 N St NW
> Washington DC 20036
> 202 429 5418
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William StanisLaus [mailto:williams77@mailandnews.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 2:11 PM
> To: ip-dvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: ULE Extension Headers
>
>
> Hi Art,
> I apologize, hope there is a possible misunderstanding. I was
> supporting (b)
> as well.
>
> <snip>
> >(And I thought some wanted to define the following structure when the
> >bit is set - an activity to which I do not think there were
> >objections.)
> <snip>
>
> which has caused misunderstanding.. to define the structure for extension
> bit
> is set.
>
> Sorry for inconvenience again.
>
> Best Regards,
> William.
> <snip>
>