> From touch@ISI.EDU Wed Jul 28 12:56:16 1999
> Delivery-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:56:16 -0700
> Return-Path: touch@ISI.EDU
> From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
> To: moore@cs.utk.edu, iking@microsoft.com, joshco@Exchange.Microsoft.com
> Subject: RE: WPAD and WREC
> Cc: jmartin@netapp.com, touch@ISI.EDU, wrec@cs.utk.edu
>
> > 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'.
To be a little more precise, I mean 'recommended' as
"the WG recommends that the IETF accept the following ID as
an informational RFC".
(not that it recommends its use; that is premature and probably out
of scope)
I see the scope as:
- produce map documents (taxonomy, research issues)
plug - contributions to the latter still requested
- produce Informational RFCs on existing protocols
to document "current practice"
The intent of the second part is that a future version of the
charter may address the unification/revision/endorsement or other
of protocols required for caching and replication. Discussion of those
protocols (the second generation, if you will) depends on the
accurate and open documentation of the current generation of protocols.
Joe
>
> 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