- From: Dave Kristol <dmk@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 97 17:30:51 EDT
- To: http-state@lists.research.bell-labs.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, hardie@nic.nasa.gov
> If the IESG will not move them forward except in tandem, > I don't really see the point in splitting the draft. Has > the IESG indicated that they would prefer this approach > because they might later be revved independantly? Or > is there pressure to do this so that implementations could > claim compliance with the wire protocol without > claiming compliance with the privacy sections? To quote one of the Appl. Area Directors: "The point of serializing these efforts is to focus the working group's discussion." In other words, you can nail down the wire protocol without getting side-tracked by arguments about privacy stuff, and vice versa. So you could do one first, then the other, but neither would progress to RFC until both sets of issues had been settled. Dave Kristol
Received on Friday, 10 October 1997 14:35:06 UTC