Re: [RAI] SIPit 24 summary

[Dean Willis <dean.willis at softarmor.com>]

On May 26, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:

> The problem that I ran into was that the lists got long enough that  
> people would quit responding (or at a minimum complain mightily).

I experience the same thing every time I try to read through our list  
of RFCs. I used to include such a list in my standard slide set; I  
gave up when it started taking multiple eye-chart pages.

There's gotta be a better way to track compliance.

I hate to suggest this, but is it time for "reference profiles" that  
describe fixed subsets of functionality? I seem to recall the Java  
people did this, with two or three levels of Java functionality; ME,  
MIDP, CLDC, and so on.

My sense is that while this didn't work 100%, it at least served to  
encapsulate functionality bundles so people could talk about them.

--
Dean