> Delivery-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:25:28 -0700
> Return-Path: joshco@Exchange.Microsoft.com
> From: "Josh Cohen (Exchange)" <joshco@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
> To: "'Keith Moore'" <moore@cs.utk.edu>, Ian King <iking@microsoft.com>
> Cc: "'John Martin'" <jmartin@netapp.com>, Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>,
> "Josh Cohen (Exchange)" <joshco@Exchange.Microsoft.com>,
> wrec@cs.utk.edu
> Subject: RE: WPAD and WREC
> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:22:49 -0700
>
> If you dont think that wrec should be producing any drafts
> or recommending that existing (pre-wrec) protocol drafts
> should be adopted as wg products, that's fine.
>
> WPAD is not the only draft in this situation, I would
> expect that others, such as WCCP would be treated in the same way.
What I was suggesting was that WPAD and WCCP would be
produced as IDs, and reviewed in the WREC WG, to
be produced as either informational RFCs 'recommended by the WG',
or standards-track 'as promoted by individual members, but NOT
the WG'.
This just means that, if they are moved into standards track,
it's not done by the WG. That would, IMO, exceed the current
charter of the WG.
PS - Keith, can you be more specific about the boundary issues
that you have heard about? This would help us revise the charter,
which I believe is a current topic of discussion.
Joe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:26 MST