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

(unknown charset) Re: HTTP Extensions Framework status?

From: <hardie@equinix.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:27:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199912072127.NAA25146@kiwi.equinix.com>
To: (unknown charset) frystyk@microsoft.com
Cc: (unknown charset) hardie@equinix.com, moore@cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore), yarong@exchange.microsoft.com ("\"Yaron Goland \(Exchange\)\""), paf@swip.net ('Patrik Fältström'), Harald@Alvestrand.no ('Harald Tveit Alvestrand'), lawrence@agranat.com (Scott Lawrence), discuss@apps.ietf.org, joshco@exchange.microsoft.com ("\"Josh Cohen \(Exchange\)\""), peterf@exchange.microsoft.com ("\"Peter Ford \(Exchange\)\"")
Thanks for clearing that up.  I agree that having one or more review
groups working with the ADs would be a good idea.  I think the review
given by discuss@apps and wgchairs is a step toward that model, and it
may give us base from which to produce such a group.
				regards,
					Ted Hardie


> My proposal is not to have more app ADs - it is to have a body next to
> the ADs that frees them from making architectural decisions and focus on
> process. The diversity of the Apps area makes it hard to have an
> end2end-interest equivalent and I think such a group has to be chartered
> to review documents and to call out dependencies between groups. The
> group has to contain app people with a broad knowledge of the app area
> and with commitment to actually produce output.
> 
> I used the word "directorate" as I believe such groups have existed in
> the past in other areas and that this was the term used.
> 
> Henrik
> 
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 1999 16:28:19 GMT

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