RE: "De facto charter" proposed text

Have we documented what those are? If not then I think we should.

Adrian.

On 23 May 2003 16:46, Thanos Diacakis wrote:
> 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]