On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Michael Thomas wrote:
Really.
It's almost done.
Right... I'd love to see this all out as soon as possible too
as a lot of effort has gone into this. For the curious, those
familiar with both DK and IIM are not going to be surprised with
the result.
It depends on the result. I know the syntax you're going with, what
I'd like to know is what features of IIM are actually going to be
kept, from what I heard last it was not many..
I'm actually surprised you gave up so easily - you yourself were quite
passionate to argue for IIM features and weaknesses in DK approach on this
list before, I hope it was not all for nothing:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mailsig/mail-archive/msg00500.html
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mailsig/mail-archive/msg00532.html
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mailsig/mail-archive/msg00564.html
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mailsig/mail-archive/msg00683.html
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mailsig/mail-archive/msg00689.html
Plus add to that few other separate concerns like:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg/9146
http://www.circleid.com/article/791_0_1_0_C/
(I remember there was much more at ASRG, but could not find it -
what happened to ASRG archive for 2004 & 2003, anyone know?)
I'm a bit more hopeful than Dave: I hope to be
sipping champagne in Paris after the first working group meeting :)
A working group just to just put stamp of approval is not what I had in
mind and I don't think its common for IETF approach. I really thought we
were going to do real engineering and careful analysis of the proposals,
their features and then decide on combination as part of public discussion
and consensus building.
But if WG is not going to have much input into design, then why bother
with it, just send it as individual submission....
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net