[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Agenda for Vienna
On torsdag, maj 15, 2003, at 12:29 Europe/Stockholm, Masataka Ohta
wrote:
Kurt;
You are totally confused.
Thank you.
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?
With proposals that have been made formally I meant submitted to the
IETF. That is enough. I will try and go out and ask the authors of what
I can find that is in the current drafts directory to find presenters
for the first session. If I miss someone, I am sure the WG will point
that out to me.
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?
For the first session I am looking at the drafts submitted.
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.
And both can have support or not have to support.
- kurtis -