RE: next steps / open issues in DASL framework

At 02:11 AM 3/13/2002 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:

>We still need to decide whether we want a standard way to discover search
>arbiters that *are* known for a particular resource. I'd say as long it's
>optional and the list doesn't need to be exhaustive, it won't hurt.

I think it's out of scope, but if you propose something that is cheap, 
optional, and non-controversial, it's okay.

The risk is that you will propose something controversial, and then pay the 
price of another two weeks of delay getting concensus.  That's the only 
risk I think.

it's your call.  I do not object.