- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 22:07:45 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Cc: masinter@parc.xerox.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Yaron Goland: > [...] >BTW I find it strange that we are pushing a draft to proposed standard >when no one has implemented it and, in so far as I am aware, is even >planning on implementing it. A proposed standard does not require existing or planned implementations. I am not aware of anybody planning to implement hit metering either, and that is going to be a proposed standard too. For a proposed standard, the only thing required is that the WG thinks it is a good idea. If you were to argue this WG as a whole has no consensus on state-man-mec being a good idea, you would have a very valid point. Though I have no objections to this thing being submitted as a proposed standard, I think that submission as `an experimental RFC which supersedes 2109' would better reflect the WG status. Not submitting it at all would mean not fixing the bugs in 2109, which is not an acceptable option as far as I am concerned. > Yaron Koen.
Received on Thursday, 10 July 1997 13:10:53 UTC