Sure. I just don't want to close the door quite yet to other protocols that would make a better basis, although we clearly have some momentum building.
Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: Ted Hardie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 12:05 PM > To: Rosen, Brian; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Direction on protocol selection > > Howdy, > > > At 8:08 AM -0800 2/27/08, Rosen, Brian wrote: > > ><snip> > > >1. That their proposals have characteristics which make them more > >attractive than the merged protocol > > If I can suggest a slightly different take on this question: > > Are there proposals whose beneficial characteristics *cannot* be > merged with the Reload-et-al proposal? > > Once a draft has been chosen as a working group draft, it is the basis > of further work. There is no reason at the process level to prevent > incorporation of any beneficial characteristics from any existing proposal > into the working group draft at that point. The key question is whether > the design choices made at some more fundamental level prevent > the incorporation, because the good bits lack the right fundamental > parts to work off. > > We need to understand any of those issues now, before the fundamental > design choices circumscribe the field. We don't need to know about > the beneficial characteristics that can be incorporated, as the working > group can consider those and support their inclusion at any time. > > regards, > Ted _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
