Re: [BLISS] IETF76 agenda

["Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton at siemens-enterprise.com>]

Hi,

I like the proposed new charter I think it makes it very clear what the rules are for work items in BLISS.

One question I have is should we need evidence of real running code and interoperability before releasing BLISS drafts as RFC's.

I don't think it would be good if the BLISS group was to analyse existing implementations and then define a new but hopefully more interoperable mechanism but then find that nobody implements it.

Could we have something in the charter that requires real evidence of interoperability before a draft can be released as an RFC or would this be going to far ?

Regards
Andy




>-----Original Message-----
>From: bliss-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:bliss-bounces at ietf.org]
>On Behalf Of Scott Lawrence
>Sent: 05 November 2009 15:19
>To: Shida Schubert
>Cc: bliss at ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [BLISS] IETF76 agenda
>
>On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 10:16 -0500, Scott Lawrence wrote:
>> On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 21:23 +0900, Shida Schubert wrote:
>> > Here is the most recent version that Scott has
>> > been working on..
>> >
>> >
>>
>http://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/ietf-drafts/lawrence/bliss-chart
>er/charter.txt
>>
>> As it happens, I was editing it again at about the same time
>Shida was
>> sending that mail, so if you looked quickly, you may want to look
>> again.
>> That latest diff is at [1].
>
>Forgot the footnote:
>
>[1]
>http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=http://bit.ly/31shzt&url2=ht
>tp://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/ietf-drafts/lawrence/bliss-charter
>/charter.txt
>
>_______________________________________________
>BLISS mailing list
>BLISS at ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
>