[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Straw Poll and Photuris
On Thu, 15 Feb 1996, William Allen Simpson wrote:
(...)
> Except that the straw poll statement goes beyond the actual results of
> the 3 questions in the poll itself to indicate a "conclusion" not
> indicated in any of the responses to the poll, and not germain to the
> questions in the poll.
>
> CONCLUSIONS:
> (1) None of the proposals currently online appear to fully
> meet all of the requirements, though it does appear that
> all of them could be modified to meet all of the
> requirements.
>
> How can this "conclusion" be reached, when examination of the list
> archives yields not a single response to the straw poll mentioning that
> none of the proposals fully meets the requirements?
(...)
> It has been admitted that Photuris meets every single requirement listed
> in RFC-1825 section 1.4 and section 2. What requirement do you mean?
I am confused as well by the nature of the previous days' objections. My
impression has been that Photuris does meet these requirements. I have
been wrong on these sorts of issues in the past, and I do not claim any
great insight into the issue. However, I personally would appreciate it
those bearing objections would state "Photuris is not ready to progress
beyond draft stage because it does not meet requirement (X) as stated in
(Y) as evinced by the following quote from (Z)." I think that such an
approach might enable all of us to have a better idea of the sense of the
working group, which I think is what the chairs are seeking.
My opinion, _in the absence of such specific objections_, is that Photuris
has met the aforementioned requirements, and it should be allowed to advance.
Todd Lewis
todd@wooster.org
Follow-Ups:
References: