Dave Crocker wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
so I erred on less controversy.
Some of us believe, rather strongly, that this is a particularly important
"bias" to the development of the requirements list. It occurs, to me, however,
that it might not be clear whether there is working group consensus on it.
I would be interested in seeing statements of preference for, or against, having
the requirements be minimalist, and include only those items for which there is
clear rough consensus to include.
If an item engenders real wg controversy, it is *not* included.
That mostly works for me. What I've tried to do is give some of the
ones that I see some but not an overwhelming consensus a "provisional"
status in the draft. I think that in order to advance we probably should
take each one of them and determine whether there is *real* consensus
with a real constiency lest it gets removed in the final version.
But yes, less is better here.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html