LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for MHTML Archives


MHTML Archives

MHTML Archives


View:

Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font

Options:

Join or Leave MHTML
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives


Subject: Re: Implementation status form
From: Einar Stefferud <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:[log in to unmask]
Date:Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:22:57 -0800
Content-Type:text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
Parts/Attachments

text/plain (59 lines)


Speaking as MHTML Chair;-)...

It seems to me that our need for implementation reporting has a
deadline just before we need to decide about advancing from Proposed
to Draft Standard Status, but not sooner.

What we need then is to determine which pats of our standard have two
(or hopefully more) independent implementations that actually do
interoperate and interwork.

We do not need to know about developer's intentions before they
implement or before they annouce their products.  So, I do not see any
reason to invade their privacy by asking for advanced information
about product plans.

We can only go to Draft status based on completed interworking
implementations.  Plans and intentions do not count, so lets not count
them.

But, on the other hand, having the forms in hand is a good thing for
us to be aware of as the implementation process proceeds.  This gives
everyone a clear view of the kind of resuslts information we need to
collect.

It will help to avoid the "I didn't know about that!"  syndrome;-)...

Cheers...\Stef

From your message Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:12:54 +0100:
}
}I have produced a first draft of a form which can be used to report
}the status of implementations. The form can be found at URLs
}
}In HTML format (HTML table, not an HTML form!):
}http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/ietf/mhtml-impl-status-v1.html
}
}In RTF format:
}http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/ietf/mhtml-impl-status-v1.rtf
}
}*Do not fill in the form now*. Instead, give comments on its content.
}How detailed should such a form be? To what extent are companies
}willing to tell what they will and will not implement? Best for
}IETF work is of course if companies are willing to report, but
}I can understand if some are not willing or might prefer a shorter
}and simpler form, in order not to divulge so much of their companies
}plans.
}
}Is there any mistakes in the form? Or missing features?
}
}I will be travelling, not reachable by mail, next week. When I
}come back, I will check your replies, modify the form, and submit
}a final version to be filled-in. If there is not much disagreement,
}I plan to submit a revised form on November 16 to be filled in
}before the end of November, and then summarize the results before
}the December meeting with IETF.
}
}------------------------------------------------------------------------
}Jacob Palme <[log in to unmask]> (Stockholm University and KTH)
}for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme

Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main MHTML Page

Permalink



LISTSRV.NORDU.NET

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager