Marshall,
I agree with your statement 100%. That is exactly what I was
trying to do when writing the "IAB treatment" draft: address what we
can, document what we cannot, and explain why.
However, Hillarie asserts, in part, that if IAB says "OPES
processor MUST be addressible" then it must be addressible even it
makes no sense or is technically impossible. I disagree with such a
position. I assume that IAB will listen to reasonable arguments. This
difference in assumptions/approaches caused the discussion on this
thread.
I am not sure how to proceed though. Clearly, we cannot say
both "OPES processor MUST be addressible" and "OPES processor MAY be
addressible". We have to pick wether our primary unit of concern is
OPES system as a whole or each OPES processor inside the system. I
think I used up all the arguments for the former. If Hillarie is not
convinced, we are stuck.
Alex.
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Marshall Rose wrote:
[ speaking as co-chair... ]
guys - this is tiring, so let's go back to first principles.
the charter is quite clear in saying that the work product has to
address the IAB considerations. it is also quite clear in stating that
the work product can diverge from those considerations providing that it
clearly documents the rationale.
to topic of what the iab/framers know or didn't know isn't
relevant. what is relevant is that the document editors need to make
sure that there is concise explanations as to why a given document
diverges, so that the poor iesg can decide whether the trade-off is
acceptable. (by definition, only the iesg and iab know what "the big
picture" is.)
thanks,
/mtr