Not sure from where you got the impression that OPES "need[s] total
control" of iCAP. It's NOT a question of somebody "having control"
over something - at least not for me. It's a question of focusing
efforts, of finding consensus and of making sure that things integrate
with each other and work together (and the iCAP work certainly is of
relevance to OPES).
Having a focused efforts helps to avoid the development of competing
standards and, thus, hopefully eliminates the need to implement many
different flavors of similar things. And, at a personal side, it
eliminates the need to travel to all the meetings of thousands of
forums (although some folks might consider the traveling a plus :)
-Markus
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.)