> From mcmanus@appliedtheory.com Wed Jul 21 06:56:45 1999
> Delivery-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 06:56:45 -0700
> Return-Path: mcmanus@appliedtheory.com
> From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@appliedtheory.com>
> Subject: Re: 45th IETF WREC WG minutes
> To: touch@ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:56:42 -0400 (EDT)
> Cc: joshco@Exchange.Microsoft.com, jad@pimlico.hpl.hp.com, wrec@cs.utk.edu,
> mcmanus@appliedtheory.com (patrick mcmanus)
>
> In a previous episode Joe Touch said...
> ::
> :: "Josh Cohen (Exchange)" wrote:
>
> :: >
> :: > 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.
>
> the charter says "the working group will define a framework[..] Part
> of this framework will be a means by which replicas and caches may be
> automatically discovered and utilized by clients."
>
> so how is this off charter?
Framework != protocol. E.g., a framework, at this point, might
indicate what protocol(s) should be standardized in a revised
charter of the WG.
> it strikes me as one of the most biggest mising pieces in the whole
> architecture..
Agreed.
> :: 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.
>
> I think that's what Josh was saying.. did I misread him?
All this appears to have happened, but not in the WG - in
a separate, but (granted) multi-party effort. But that doesn't
necessitate the need for review and revision in a WG.
Joe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:26 MST