Re: Agenda for Vienna

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Kurt;

You are totally confused.

> > Note that people, including chairs, insisting on a requirement draft
> > have been deprecating to discuss specific proposals.
> 
> I don't think we are at the stage of formal proposals yet. I think we 
> need to learn to walk before we start thinking of doing base-jumping.

I never said "formal proposals".

However, you said "proposals that have then been made formally
to the IETF", which means "formal proposals".

Do you need formal proposals or not?

>> 3. The second session will be scheduled later in the week. This will
> >> concentrate on the two main proposals that are currently being worked
> >> on.
> >> concentrate on the two main proposals that are currently being worked
> >> on.

> I only see two major solution "classes" that have any wider support 
> right now.

Assuming you are requesting formal proposals, do you need formal
proposals of classes?

Or, do you need formal proposals of solutions?

> >> it is very clear that there is only two
> >> real solutions being worked on at the moment.
> >
> > Note that something being worked on is not better than something
> > completed.
> 
> Something with wide support is better than something completed. It's 
> not "first with code" it's "running code AND consensus".

A class can not have code, a solution of a class can.

							Masataka Ohta