Could you please briefly define/describe rough credibility criteria?
sure.
For example, does the alternative need to come as an ID comparable to
irml-03 in size?
no. beck-irml-03 is pretty much fleshed-out, so i'd expect an
alternative to be copmlete enough for someone to understand what's going
on, without having all the detail filled-in.
Does the alternative have to cover HTTP and other
application-specific things that irml-03 covers (though there may
already be consensus that those things do not belong to IRML Core)?
the charter says HTTP is a MUST, others aren't. so the alternative, at a
minimum, MUST deal with with HTTP
I can come up with an alternative that a reasonable technical person
would understand and can extrapolate, but I need to know the minimum
requirements better so that I do not waste time on something that
cannot be accepted as a viable alternative in the nearest future.
great. if your confident with an alternative approach, put an initial
document together and submit it. i don't want to forestall alternatives,
but we need to be wrapping things up. (we also need that other document
you were working on.)
at some point the iesg is going to ask what we've done for them *lately*,
and right now, markus and i don't have much of a response.
thanks!
/mtr