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.
