As I reread this "nested transfer encodings" text from the minutes, I
have difficulty seeing it as anything but a VERY CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE!
A strawman poll was taken, and the group was fairly evenly split
between those interested in preserving the nested encodings and those
who did not. A compromise position was advanced and generally
accepted. The Proposed Standard will retain the use of nested
atransport encodings. If this proves to be unworkable or unduly
burdensome, it will be dropped as the protocol advances to Draft
Standard. The group agreed that it is far easier to drop the nested
encodings in a future version than to add it.
I also call attention to the observation by the Chair that "the group
was fairly evenly split", and that the compromise was only to to
retain it pending proof that it is unworkable.
As such, "nested transfer encodings" text should be clearly marked as
"VERY CONTROVERSIAL and SUBJECT to ELIMINATION or DRASTIC REVISION"
in the next RFX-XXXX version, if it is not already removed by then.
As I noted earlier, since implementors find it more objectionable than
non-implementors, it is very hard to imagine how continued
experimental implementation will lead to its adoption, unless some