Re: Agenda for Vienna

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

Kurt;

> > You are totally confused.
> 
> Thank you.

You are welcome.

> 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.

Please first ask all the people to be the authors by call for drafts.

> >>> Note that people, including chairs, insisting on a requirement draft
> >>> have been deprecating to discuss specific proposals.

> > Or, do you need formal proposals of solutions?
> 
> For the first session I am looking at the drafts submitted.

Which drafts? On classes or on solutions?

Please call for them clarifying it.

> >>>> it is very clear that there is only two
> >>>> real solutions being worked on at the moment.

> >> 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.

But, solutions can be evaluated only after classes are chosen.

It is fine for you to say:

	it is very clear that there is only two
	real classes being worked on at the moment.

but, you said:

	it is very clear that there is only two
	real solutions being worked on at the moment.

That is, you are totally confused.

							Masataka Ohta