Re: regarding the resolution of issue 431

On Thu, 2003-07-10 at 23:29, Marc Hadley wrote:
> > Or are you saying that there may be a bigger issue we will see after we
> > have the requirements? If this is the case, let's close 431, wait for
> > the requirements and open issues stemming from them.
> >
> If you want to separate the example in 431 from the more general issue 
> of intermediary semantics that's fine, but even then I don't think we 
> can close the new issue for the example until we have an agreed set of 
> requirements - how can we know that its OK for intermediaries to shift 
> data between attachments and inline until we know the set of 
> requirements we are trying to meet ?

Marc, indeed I want to separate the simpler issue in 431 (the example)
from the bigger, to me unclear, issue that seemingly has to wait for the
requirements.

I also motion to close the (narrower) issue 431 because there seems to
be consensus in the WG that intermediaries can, in general, change what
is optimized. If we come up with a requirement that is contrary to this
(which seems extremely unlikely, considering the voices in the group)
the requirement will be a new information and we'll happily reopen the
issue.

Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect
                   Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/

Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 07:41:34 UTC