In a previous episode Keith Moore said...
::
:: > do you disagree?
::
:: in this case I want WREC to stick very closely to its assigned task.
:: the group is controversial enough as it is, and the ADs have already
:: heard complaints about it deviating from its charter.
::
I've got to admit I'm a little nervous by the group's chair and the
area advisor having such different concepts of the group's scope.
but fine. for those of us hideously confused about what appear to be
process arguments but really view this as appropriate work that they
would like to help along, would you mind highlighting what objectives
are at what stage?
The following are listed as id's of wrec by the ietf charter
page.. the association is *not* mine.
Internet-Drafts:
[1] Client-Cache Communication (5760 bytes)
draft-melve-clientcache-com-00.txt
[2] Inter Cache Communication Protocols (9896 bytes)
draft-melve-intercache-comproto-00.txt
[3] Internet Web Replication and Caching Taxonomy (59679 bytes)
draft-ietf-wrec-taxonomy-01.txt
[4] Web Caching and Replication -- Research Issues (18081 bytes)
draft-ietf-wrec-res-00.txt
[5] Web Cache Coordination Protocol V1.0 (19403 bytes)
draft-ietf-wrec-web-pro-00.txt
[6] Web Proxy Auto-Discovery Protocol (47458 bytes)
draft-ietf-wrec-wpad-00.txt
I guess the definition of 'framework' in the charter is the term most
open to different interpretations..
and lastly, rechartering is listed as a 07/99 goal of the working
group. Assumably it should be in our immediate goals to construct a
charter that defines how we proceed for the approval of the IESG. Is
that a good read of the situation?
Frankly the only purpose the things done so far (taxonomy document,
etc) have so far is as background materials to specify things exactly
like wpad and wccp and htcp and icp and other things like them... I'm
not really convinced of their value on their own.
If the folks responsible for creating wpad (and implementing it in an
installed base such as msie) are willing to a] openly define it for
interoperability in other clients, and b] open the protocol for future
modification and open community review then it'd be a disgrace to push
them down a 'closed but publicly published' informational route when
their work is so germane to the wg and they are willing to be part of
the process.
-P
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:26 MST