Re: RFC2518bis (process)

Given the current state of collection of interop results and planning for
what needs to be collected, this sounds like the right path to me. I'll take
this as consensus unless I hear some objections.

<big red alert warning>

Just because we are recycling at proposed, we should not use this as an
excuse to put more stuff in. Let's document what people are doing and the
key things they need and we will be that much closer to draft. If there are
parts no one uses or needs, we can take them out. From a what goes in this
document point of view, let's keep thinking about our goal is to get to
draft not greatly expand the protocol. We can use *other* RFCs to expand the
protocol. 

<\alert>

Cullen



On 9/25/05 5:07 AM, "Geoffrey M Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> 
> I agree with Julian on this.
> 
> Cheers, 
> Geoff 
> 
> Julian wrote on 09/25/2005 04:04:46 AM:
>  
>> As far as I am concerned, the importance of a revised version of RFC2518
>> is much higher than actually moving to Draft Standard, thus if we these
>> two goals conflict (time, interop experience with changes introduced
>> since RFC2518) we should IMHO sacrifice the latter one.
> 
>

Received on Monday, 26 September 2005 16:56:19 UTC