On 7/23/02 at 8:18 AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
Anyway, given that they actually want to get work done under the
auspices of the IETF, I see no justification for turning them away.
Given that this is a deployed product, I tend to agree. The work
is going to get done; we may as well help it to get done as well as
possible.
i have no useful knowledge or opinion on the actual technical
subject, so my points may already have been answered. but the
reasons given above seem sufficient to put us in the paperclip
standards making business. i submit that relevance, expertise,
non-conflict with other standards groups, change control, etc. are
important criteria.
I certainly agree that relevance, expertise, change control, etc. are
important criteria for the IESG to review. I believe a review of the
discussion here and the minutes of the BOF session will reveal that
each of those criteria are well met: This is an application protocol
deployed on the Internet, folks with the relevant expertise in the
Jabber community and in the IETF community have expressed the desire
to work on the problems with the protocol, and none of them are
asserting the desire to have change control lie anywhere but within
the IETF.
However, I'm not clear why "non-conflict with other standards groups"
is a criteria. Care to explain?
pr
--
Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102