Re: Submission: deltav subset

If the WG shuts down, what is the accepted mechanism for
hashing out protocol usage issues that surface during
implementation?

Roy

Jim Amsden wrote:

>
> I'm inclined to declare victory on our DeltaV charter and
> let some servers get built on what we have before we start
> making a lot of immediate changes. Of course I would
> welcome any BOF to determine level of interest in
> extensions, new packages, etc. DeltaV is now firmly on the
> standards track. The next step is to get some
> implementation and determine interoperability issues. If
> the community fragments immediately on different packages
> that aren't interoperable in meaningful ways, then
> certainly that's good information for the standards
> process that would need to be addressed. But I think the
> community would benefit from attempting to implement the
> spec as written so we encourage interoperability.
>
> As for shutting down DeltaV, we're only at proposed
> standard. We could consider updating the charter to move
> to the next stage in the lifecycle. I would be happy to
> entertain suggestions as to the content of such a charter,
> and if there's sufficient interest, we can propose the
> next set of work items to the AD's as either continuation
> of DeltaV (with a new charter), or other working groups
> focused on more specific tasks.
>
>
>
>  "Jim Whitehead"
   <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>                To:        "Clemm,
                             Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>,
   10/18/2001 06:36 PM       "'Lisa Dusseault'"
                             <lisa@xythos.com>, "Jim Amsden"
                             <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
                                     cc:
                                     Subject:        RE:
                             Submission: deltav subset


>
>
>
> Geoff Clemm writes:
> > I think it is more appropriate to keep it as an
> > individual submission until the working group has had
> > a chance to review/iterate on it.
>
> This may be true, but IETF policy does say that it is the
> Chair's discretion
> on whether a document is a WG draft or an individual
> submission.
>
> I was just pointing out that Jim may cause friction with
> the ADs if, by
> making a new WG draft, he extends the life of DeltaV when
> they think it's
> close to being shut down. I imagine they are keen to avoid
> another WebDAV
> :-)
>
> But, even if Jim does decide that it should not be a new
> draft, it would be
> well within Lisa's rights to hold a BOF at the next IETF
> with an eye towards
> creating a new WG, "SDV" (simple Delta V), say.
>
> - Jim
>
>
>