Dave Crocker wrote:
At 08:35 AM 9/12/2001, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
But you didn't respond to my comment that this issue *is* relevant to the
Last Call precisely because there was no discussion whether the work
should have been chartered in the first place, if it had been a WG
submission.
While we are at it, we need to review the decision to permit specification
of IP over more than one medium.
It is architecturally the same issue.
No it isn't. Didn't you see the hourglass presentation in the London plenary?
The issue is how much bloat *we* endorse at the upper levels; we can't control
the bloat at the hardware level.
But I agree that we should be selective at all levels [digression on IP over
Bluetooth deleted]. And I'm being very careful not to suggest SOAP/BEEP
is in any way a bad thing to do; we just need to decide consciously whether
to endorse it.
d/
ps. Your previous comment about IETF tendency to restrict options
neglected to note that that is WITHIN a particular protocol. The IETF has
NOT had a track record of restricting convergence choices.
True. And we have a lot of unused RFCs to prove it. Each of them complicates
implementors' dsecision processes
Brian
My own PS: I've made my point for the IESG to consider, you have made your
rebuttal.
I think we can drop it.