I agree with the points you mention as necessary as part
of the normal process for a standards track document.
There are server side implementations (plural) as well
as a single client at this point.
As for a protocol review, as well as group modifications
and forward progress, I would welcome it, as I'm sure
the other authors would as well.
I wasn't specifically asking for the group to take a specific
action which isnt in the charter. I was just suggesting that
the draft is standards track, as opposed to informational.
As for exactly what to do next, I suppose we should consult
the ADs.
Some possible choices may be:
1) Proceed toward a last call on the current draft toward proposed.
2) Move the current version to informational RFC status
along with producing v2.0 in wrec
3) Move WPAD out of wrec and proceed as an individual submission
moving toward proposed...
4) Move WPAD into its own WG
Myself, I would prefer 1 or 2, but others are possible.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:touch@ISI.EDU]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 1999 11:37 PM
> To: Josh Cohen (Exchange)
> Cc: 'John Dilley'; wrec@cs.utk.edu
> Subject: Re: 45th IETF WREC WG minutes
>
>
>
>
> "Josh Cohen (Exchange)" wrote:
>
> > To be clear, there is nothing proprietary about WPAD, it
> was designed
> > from the ground up as a collaborative effort, and there are
> a fair number of
> > implementations for its age.
> >
> > In my mind, these are the things which make open standards.
> As such,
> > I would think that WPAD is standards track.
>
> Since it isn't part of our charter, we can't do this yet.
>
> If it were in our charter, there would have to be multiple
> implementations, a detailed evaluation of the protocol, and
> perhaps group-driven modifications before this would occur.
>
> Joe
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:26 MST