Re: "De facto charter" proposed text

OK, but we need to be careful here, because although what he have defined is
in 2778/9, there are also requirements in 2778/9 that we have not provided
for, and I believe the consensus is that we shouldn't provide for everything
in there.

Thanos
---
Thanos Diacakis
Openwave Systems
[email protected]
+1-303 385 6705

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adrian Bateman" <[email protected]>
To: "'Mark Day'" <[email protected]>; "'IMPP Working Group'"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 3:35 AM
Subject: RE: "De facto charter" proposed text


> Mark,
>
> My only comment is to whether the charter description should make
reference
> to our working rule of thumb, which was that we should define only
features
> required by 2778/2779 with the addition only of things necessary to make a
> workable protocol, our so called "minimalist approach". This might answer
a
> host of questions about why X, Y, or Z wasn't included.
>
> Regards,
>
> Adrian.
>
> On 22 May 2003 23:54, Mark Day wrote:
> > Note that this is a slightly different question from whether the group
> > *should* be trying to do something different.  That can be an
interesting
> > discussion, but one that will distract us from getting the documents and
> > sensible evaluation criteria to the IESG.  We'd like to keep comments
> > focused on whether we've accurately captured what the WG rough consensus
> > direction has been.
>
>
>
>
>
>   [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]
>
>




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