Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP
John McMeeking <[email protected]> Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:22:23 -0600
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ldup |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <OFA1F01E59.01FA2B48-ON86256CAF.006A0B84-86256CAF.006A6C3D@us.ibm.com> |
Just reinforce Kurt's point -- at least I think this was his point:
Option 1 does not produce something that vendors will be able to implement
and guarantee interoperability. It captures work we have already done,
with a bit of clean up and an effort to document known holes/issues.
Option 1 and 2 differ in whether this work is done under the umbrella of
the working group, or as individual submissions.
John McMeeking
"Kurt D.
Zeilenga" To: Richard Huber <[email protected]>
<[email protected] cc: [email protected], [email protected]
g> Subject: Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP
Sent by:
owner-ietf-ldup@m
ail.imc.org
01/15/2003 05:36
AM
At 11:21 PM 1/14/2003, Richard Huber wrote:
>I'm in favor of option 1. As noted by Felix and Ryan, a standard way of
>replicating data would be very helpful to many users.
How does option 1 provide "a standard way to replicate data"?
>And I believe we have authors to finish up the work.
Good to hear.