RE: REPORTS

• From: John Hall <johnhall@xythos.com>
• Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 09:58:33 -0700
• To: "'Tim Ellison'" <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>, "'DeltaV'" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <000401c136f5$299e9270$1300a8c0@xythosjohnhall>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Hall [mailto:johnhall@evergo.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 9:58 AM
> To: 'Tim Ellison'; 'DeltaV'
> Subject: RE: REPORTS
> 
> 
> > 
> > There were no objections raised in the meeting or when the
> > minutes were published.  I'd consider that a consensus.
> 
> 
> It was the equivalent of slipping language in a bill at 
> reconciliation time, without debate, after midnight when 
> everyone else had gone home, then rushing the bill out for 
> signature before anyone noticed.
> 
> MAY is more appropriate than SHOULD given the late date at 
> which the change was made, the manner of the change, and the 
> fact that a commercial implementation of the spec will not be 
> implementing this report and will recommend that clients who 
> wish to be interoperable avoid it as well.
> 
> And if there is no difference between MAY and SHOULD, then 
> there should be no objection to making it MAY.
> 

Received on Thursday, 6 September 2001 12:59:08 UTC