MSGFMT

The only concern I have with the current specification of MSGFMT is that it
defines something new (and expends quite a bit of space in the draft doing
so, pretty much Section 2 and 3 and much of Section 4), when it might have
been possible to reuse something that already exists. From my perspective,
this is a standards process issue, not a technology issue - I really doubt
that any analysis of the processing time or implementation difficulty of
alternative formats would really be material. 

While I would be happy to cite some pre-existing RFC as the format that will
be used for CPIM MSGFMT, I'm not interested in inventing (or even merely
finishing) some other format - I feel the format described in the MSGFMT
draft today is adequate, and I would rather continue with that format than
substitute in something else for which we would incur new development time.
I would therefore prefer the existing format to any XML-based format we
might define.

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.



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