Re: Fw: WG Review: Provisioning Registry Protocol (provreg)

["James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>]

Dave,

> At 05:17 PM 2/3/2001 -0500, Edward Lewis wrote:
> >The reason I removed the mention of the draft is that we are not here
to
> >bless a particular protocol generated outside the working group, but
rather
> >to generate a protocol in full view of the IETF.  Scott's proposals
are
> >fine starting points, but if there happens to be a better proposal
out
> >there, we aren't going to stop it.
>
> 1.  If there happened to be a better proposal, then we would have
heard
> about it by now.

I really really have to disagree with you here as much as I hate to do
so.

There is definately other proposal out there. There is no such thing as
one solution for a particular problem. If the intention of this WG is to
make Scott I-D into an RFC, honestly, there is *NO NEED* for the WG. All
Scott needs to do is to submit it to the IESG for review.

There is no better proposal now, yes. But there is none other either
which makes the choice scarely. It is like voting for the president with
one candidate. And there are no other proposal now because others who
may be interested in this area either (a) have not heard of it (b)
trying to look for it (i have to hunt for it. for goodness sake, i cant
even find the archive until someone else posted it), (c) they may be
still drafting it.

And yes, i am writing a proposal. But I like to see if we can get any
consensus on the requirements first.

-James Seng