Subject: Re: Open issue: requester identifier in DPV response

From: Peter Sylvester <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 19:40:02 +0200 (MET DST)

> > 
> > The list of potential useful additional feature is as endless as the
> > list of useless features. 
> 
> No. We would not make the effort of writing these requirements if we were
> going to allow a protocol that supports many other features that are *not*
> required.
> 
> Denis

Steve Kent said a few days ago:

" We agreed 
  to allow competing protocol submissions which would be evaluated 
  against the requirements. "

This does not mean IMO, that it is forbidden to have more features
than those specified in the requirement doc.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 13:46:23 -0700

Stephen - I think that it is very likely that ANY involvement by a WG Chair
in ANY protocol at any level is a conflict of interest and actionable as
such. It shows a predudicial predisposition towards that protocol and favors
it over all others. This is why I am demanding the rewriting of the WG's
charter as well as the approriate sections of RFC2026 et al..

What this means is that you,a WG Chiar CANNOT make any agreements as what
you will and wont allow in the WG. In fact what it really means is that a WG
Chair cannot make any arbitrary decsions regarding one protocol over
another, and it further mandates a uniform process for all. That means
definging the term "vetting" for this WG and how many participants have to
be involved and whether they have to represent separate interests or not...

So the IETF is shooting 0% on keeping the playing field level IMHO...

Todd

---

From: Denis Pinkas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:25:54 +0200

Peter,

> than those specified in the requirement doc.

The two statements you quote are simply unrelated. 
So this is not a demonstration of your claim.

Denis