Subject: RE: [midcom] Comments on Framework 03 draft

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 15:28:57 -0400

At 07:24 PM 7/26/01 +0100, [email-masked] wrote:
>I think this [OOP agents] needs discussing further then as I'm getting a lot of
>discussion on the subject off the list.

The matter has been closed for some weeks on this list, and this
list is the place where the working group tries to reach agreement.  
The only thing I can see in the framework document that might seem
to be in violation of the decision is the use of the phrase
"In-path agents," but inasmuch as the document explicitly says
that the only thing being considered is in-path agents I really
don't see a problem.

Again, we're in last call.  Objections need to be specific.

Melinda

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 16:52:18 -0400

> Again, we're in last call.  Objections need to be specific.

oh, come on.  it's one thing to insist that discussions be on the list,
but the fact that the chair has declared a last call does not mean that
the document only needs minor tweaking before it goes forward.
it's entirely reasonable for WG participants to push back with more
general objections.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 17:19:06 -0400

>the document only needs minor tweaking before it goes forward.

Of course not, and that's not the issue.  "The text in section xxx is
incorrect" is helpful; "there's too much stuff about OOP agents" when
there's virtually nothing on OOP agents is not.

Melinda