> Sorry to have not been involved in the disucssion. Vacation and all.. > > Based on the discussion with Graham I am at a loss as to how to fix > the document to satisfy your concerns. It seems that most of your > concerns are more to do with the entire W3C promoted web architecture > than with anything in particular with this proposal other than the > desire for the individual syntactic elements to be as semantically > free as possible. I do have reservations with IETF endorsing the "W3C promoted web architecture" and this proposal seems (deliberately or not) to be encouraging us to move in that direction. > Is there anything that can be done to fix this document or are you > opposed to even the intended purpose of it? I can see utility in this proposal. I can also see it causing problems. I don't know how to get the utility without introducing the potential for problems. Some proposals are like that. I did include some concrete suggestions along with my original comments that I thought would improve the document, and that I hope IESG (and you) will consider. Graham also made at least one suggestion I thought was valuable (there may have been others that I don't recall offhand) - that the document contain an explicit statement saying that these URIs are not to be used for the purpose of translating existing protocols into XML, or at least, that such a practice is nonstandard and discouraged. (I don't recall his exact wording, but something like this could be very helpful.) I continue to believe that if people want to import protocol elements from an IETF protocol for use in another protocol that the proper way to do this is to write an document about it, describing how those data elements are used in the new context and (if appropriate) assigning new names or URIs for those protocol elements -- NOT to assume that the model can be imported into (say) XML merely by giving each protocol element a URI without any change (intended or not) to the semantics of those protocol elements. Keith