On 20-Jan-06, at 4:12 AM, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
That's the part I was disagreeing with. I was just trying to
pointing out
that the first spec'd binding, HTTP, would allow for DIX to
build traction
and that we did not need to have a "mandatory" binding.
What's the difference between "first spec'd binding" as you used
those words
above and "mandatory" as I described? My point is that a working
group is
going to have to craft a spec that allows two implementations to
interoperate. If someone implements something using http, and
someone else
does something different (and the specs allow both) such that they
don't
interoperate, then there is going to be a problem. The foundation
that
allows interoperability MUST be specified in the charter.
I understand your point and am working on addressing it.
John
_______________________________________________
dix mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
