Hm, sounds like I wasn't clear in what I was saying, because I was agreeing
with you. :-) From my reading of the WREC charter, the WPAD draft itself
is outside the scope. But I was also suggesting that I don't see any magic
in having WPAD be a product of the WG -- it's perfectly fine to have it be
an individual contribution. IMHO it's also appropriate to ask the
participants in WREC to review it, NOT as a WG product, but just as a draft
of interest to this population. Same as when I asked the URI mailing list
if participants would provide comments on the URLREG drafts, simply because
they were a knowledgeable group on the subject.
That was my point -- do you disagree?
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 11:40 AM
To: Ian King
Cc: 'John Martin'; Joe Touch; Josh Cohen (Exchange); wrec@cs.utk.edu;
Keith Moore
Subject: Re: WPAD and WREC
Ian,
Every group is different; it's not appropriate to generalize from the
experience with URLREG.
WREC's current charter is intentionally very restricted by IESG and IAB.
The group is not to take on additional work outside of that charter
until its charter is revised.
Keith
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:26 MST