Subject: Re: [midcom] Protocol Evaluation document template

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 19:52:44 -0500 (EST)

> I would really like to understand why we cannot just specify the
> abstract protocol completely FIRST, and then evaluate concrete protocols
> SECOND. This makes much more sense, since we will know EXACTLY how well
> each candidate protocol fits.

seems like a lot of work to specify an abstract protocol but if the WG
feels that would be a more efficient way to proceed it would be OK
by me (as AD) but its not actually my call - the WG chair is front line
"management"

Scott

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 08:00:04 -0500

> by me (as AD) but its not actually my call - the WG chair is front line

A bit of iteration is in order.  The two questions are "where do we want
to go" and "will this get us there", but the answer to the first depends
partly on what you are looking at when you ask the second, and the
answer to the second obviously depends on the first.  Since we're a
committee we can't answer them both at the same time, but we can work on
them in parallel, with occasional exchanges of RNA.