At 01:06 PM 7/20/2002 -0500, Pete Resnick wrote: >As was stated at the IESG plenary, it was absolutely clear to most of us >that the folks in the room were perfectly willing to release change >control. It was indicated that some people in the Jabber community might >offer resistance to that idea, but that all of the main players were on >board and the others could "be convinced". I'm at a loss to understand how >people heard this differently. Because they seem to think that any utterance other than a pure, simple "yes" is a pure, simple "no". The idea that the dialogue between Jabber and the IETF is a negotiation in which the IETF needs to do its part in this sequence, as much as the Jabber side need to do theirs, is somehow not occurring to such folk. >>The answer to this suggestion at the BOF was, that the Informational >>would get blocked because of an existing IETF WG working on the same area >>of Instant Messaging and Presence. > >I don't remember this response, but as far as I know, it is simply incorrect, I, too, heard no such response and agree that such an assertion about IETF process is straight out wrong. There are no rules against competing efforts. In fact the IETF does better when it allows each effort to proceed on its own than it does when trying to squelch alternatives. Folks who bother to look at the pattern of IETF decisions should be able to discern this inconvenient reality without too much effort. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker <mailto:dave@tribalwise.com> TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850