If the alternative also has these, please point to them.
Absent them, the effort is far more open-ended.
XKMS is a W3C Recommendation. It has met the criteria requiring two
independent impelmentations.
The effort required to link to XKMS is considerably less than the effort
required to complete the dns retrieval mechanism.
Furthermore the two mechanisms are sufficiently close that if we were to
discover issues that relate to XKMS the chance that they are not
relevant in the context of dns is very small indeed.
I did not feel that the question about the current path
needed a recitation of
its status, whereas the work and schedule impact that will
come from adding
alternatives did.
Nor did you feel the need to discuss the terms of the questionaire with
the people making alternative proposals to ensure that it correctly
represented the proposals they were making.
As such the results of the 'poll' are completely irrelevant to the
question the group faces. It was a complete waste of the groups time.
This is somewhat ironic since the purported objective here is to 'save
the group's time'.
It would save the groups time if we discussed the actual proposals being
made and did not waste time with polls that misrepresent the proposals.