RE: discussion about document publishing

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Tony Hain writes:
> 
> The point I was trying to raise at the mic was that we don't 
> need to publish in parallel with the working group if the
> working group will simply publish the documents on the table.
> There still appears to be a desire to kill these
> transition tools. The BS about allowing them to be 
> Experimental is nothing more than trying to duck the issue. 
> 
I believe that allowing them to be published as experimental or
informational allows you to publish them ASAP. This to document
CURRENT IMPLEMENTATIONs, not document current implementation 
plus extra things that might be implemented.

> I can't get back to the mic...
> WE DON'T HAVE TO MEASURE DEPLOYMENT FOR PS !!!!
> 
Correct.

> The mechanisms that solve the identified scenarios all need 
> to be on the standards track.
> There is no need for delay and long evaluation.
>
We do need standards track solutions indeed. BUT, to come to consensus
on which one (or maybe few) solutions should be on the standards track
will probably take a somewhat long(er) time. If you prefer that, then
that may be an alternative.

Bert 
> Tony 
> 
>