The question is one of process for consensus documents. NOT does OPES or
any other
working group OWN iCAP.
If iCAP is submitted to the IETF (OPES, WEBI, anywhere) then is a consensus
process to agree to its contents, agree? Of course an individual I-D has no
consensus, that is not the discussion.
If an IETF finds issues to be resolved (AD, WG, whatever) then these must
be resolved. Resolution is not the authors saying "we submitted it elsewhere
and they accepted it" agree?
If the authors of the document, members of iCAP-form or not, agree to
make all changes requested in a timely manner as IETF participants
then there I do not see an issue. But this is the concern. Do you
remember the Pittsburgh BOF? That certainly did not
imply this kind of cooperation. agree?
So the issue is NOT if the authors of a document also submit it to
another organization like ECMA, that can be ok! The issue is
for the IETF members to work on a document and not have
the IETF process followed. Does everyone agree?
At 11:24 AM 6/28/2001 -0700, Ian Cooper wrote:
I' confused. In trying to respond to another message I finding myself
asking why OPES seems to need total control of iCAP.
If it's published as an Informational RFC (with the current nits fixed)
what problem does that actually present?
Is it the job of a proposed working group to worry about the interaction
of standards bodies on a protocol that they themselves say they may choose
not to use? (And that if they do, may end up being something so different
that it's not the iCAP that's been examined by those other standards bodies.)
Michael W. Condry
Director, Network Edge Technology