Re: draft-ietf-impp-cpim-msgfmt syntax

Jonathan,

Monday, November 11, 2002, 12:38:05 PM, you wrote:
Jonathan> This discussion would be fine and dandy if we were having it a year ago, 
Jonathan> but we are not. The working group went through debates about syntax,

1.  I had tried to locate that topic in the archives, but could not find
anything that would be called a discussion.  Any chance you can provide a
pointer?

2. When a group takes this long, things change. Lots of things. For that
matter, even the goal of the group seems to have changed. I noted that in my
original posting.

Were there not a strategic impact from this choice and were this choice not
such an expensive and risky one, I would not have raised it.


Jonathan> To me, the most important feature we need from the IMPP specs is
Jonathan> FINISHED.

Interesting.  I offered the same view 2 years ago.

At any rate, given that this effort has gone on for 4 years, we need to be
just a tad concerned about utility and adoptability, as well as this sudden
concern for locally-optimized speediness.


Jonathan> I would submit that the cost of changing ones mind on old issues will
Jonathan> frequently incur the highest cost.

Perhaps you have not noticed that there are others willing to discuss this?

Perhaps you would offer some comments on the actual efficacy of the existing
technical choice, with respect to the concerns that I raised.

d/
-- 
 Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email protected]>
 TribalWise <http://www.tribalwise.com>
 t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850




  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]