Re: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Fri, 14 June 2002 22:26 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA18058 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 18:26:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id SAA11697 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 18:26:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA11634; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 18:25:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA11609 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 18:25:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA18006 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 18:24:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from green.bisbee.fugue.com (dsl-64-193-175-153.telocity.com [64.193.175.153]) by toccata.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g5EMN3S27590; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 15:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tongpanyi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by green.bisbee.fugue.com (8.12.2/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g5EMPSgF000545; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 17:25:28 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 17:25:28 -0500
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v482)
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
To: rbhibbs@pacbell.net
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <JCELKJCFMDGAKJCIGGPNOEOIDNAA.rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
Message-Id: <A16BB1BC-7FE5-11D6-9A23-00039367340A@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.482)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> ...I disagree slightly, Thomas, in that I believe it is important for the
> working groups to encourage multiple implementations and interoperability
> testing precisely because that is the means to substantiate a call for
> advancement.

If it is necessary for the wg to encourage multiple interoperable 
implementations and interoperability testing, then perhaps that's a signal 
that the protocol spec isn't ready to advance.   My experience is that if 
people want the protocol, they will implement it and do interoperability 
testing with no outside encouragement.   "They" is often members of the wg,
  but that doesn't mean it needs to be official wg business.


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg