At 01:17 PM 05/06/01 -0600, Hilarie Orman wrote:
>The version submitted to ECMA will be
>the version that is published by the RFC editor. In my opinion, the former
>takes precedence.
I the intent was "latter" (the one that occurs later in the sentence)?
Yes - my mistake. I mean that the RFC will take precedence.
I'd be a lot happier about ICAP if it were taken on as standards track
by the IETF. Taking it as Informational now rules out cleaning up
lingering issues wrt to clarity, interoperability, etc. I'd suggest waiting
until London, at which point the IESG will have either ruled or let its
slow wheels grind to a default halt.
I think the web has survived pretty well with one of its core protocols
being documented as informational, don't you?
Documenting existing practice, developed *outside* and IETF WG is a
necessary and important step right now. In fact, even if OPES were
chartered and it were going to "develop" iCAP, it would *still* be a good
idea to document v1.0 before embarking on v2.0 - right?
OPES needs ICAP-like functionality. I can foresee problems if ICAP
is not a real standards protocol, even wrt to developing something
similar but different.
There is nothing in what I propose which precludes iCAP becoming standards
track. In fact, I would expect that documenting v1.0 *now* as Informational
would expedite that.
John
---------------------------------------------------------------
Network Appliance Direct / Voicemail: +31 23 567 9615
Scorpius 2 Fax: +31 23 567 9699
NL-2132 LR Hoofddorp Main Office: +31 23 567 9600
---------------------------------------------------------------