Dave Crocker wrote:
> Perhaps the most important goals in re-chartering this effort are to: > > 1. Narrow the scope of work > > 2. Specify deliverables very precisely > > 3. Specify dates for deliverable that are very near-term. These are fine goals, but the specific objective items you cite are not satisfactory to the weight of the task at hand. Instead, they raise more artificial barriers. > 2. Focus on the production of a single technical specification to be > offered as a standard. Hence the working group is no longer exploring, > researching or otherwise having broad discussions. Some of the proposals are at odds with such an objective, and so the adoption of this objective would only serve to narrow the work items. For example, UDNS requires a coordinated release for at least two purposes: so that name lengths can be synchronized, and so that delegation entities can coordinate delegations they make as UTF-8 and ACE encoded representations of the same UCS string. Adopting your work items would mean that those considerations would not be incorporated (unless you added them to ACE while I wasn't looking), and would therefore result in alternatives being non-conformant with the WG output. Additional beauracracy does not result in better science. Let's let the technology compete on its own merits, okay? -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
