W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > December 1999

RE: HTTP Extensions Framework status?

From: Ned Freed <Ned.Freed@innosoft.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 21:46:16 -0800 (PST)
To: Patrik Fältström <paf@swip.net>
Cc: "Yaron Goland (Exchange)" <yarong@exchange.microsoft.com>, "'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'" <Harald@Alvestrand.no>, Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>, moore@cs.utk.edu, discuss@apps.ietf.org, "Josh Cohen (Exchange)" <joshco@exchange.microsoft.com>, "Peter Ford (Exchange)" <peterf@exchange.microsoft.com>
Message-id: <01JJ73C8IGSI8Y9072@INNOSOFT.COM>
> This has been discussed a number of times, and every time the answer that
> comes back states that having meetings at the same time (i.e. at the same
> IETF meetings) is a good thing. It has also been discussed whether the
> various areas should be meeting at different dates, and the answer to that
> questions has also been the same. Take for example the MMMS or iDNS BOF or
> the IMPP effort which all depend on interest from more areas than APPS.

Much as I'd like for such an approach to be workable, I am in complete
agreement with Patrik about this. Indeed, we already have quite a bit of
difficulty with cross-area coordination, and I anticipate that this will be
even harder to do in the future. A separate meeting would drastically reduce
our ability for multiple area review, and that would be a very bad thing.

> The problem we have in apps is that we have too many things on the table,
> and you point that out in your mail. Too many things are "almost done" and
> that take 100% of the energy we all have.

Exactly. What we need to do is to work really, really hard on getting all the
nearly done work DONE. And I'm not talking about the ADs here, I'm talking
about everyone else who hasn't completed a revision of a draft, who hasn't
sent in those comments, or whatever.

				Ned
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 1999 01:01:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 23 March 2006 20:11:26 GMT