RE: grrp - object deletion

[Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>]

This is the kind of issue, if spurred by difficulties in generating
interoperable implementations, that would be addressed in a next round of
the specifications.  I.e., we are submitting the documents (should be in
the past tense now) for the first level of standardization.  (I believe
this is Proposed, I admit I keep forgetting the correct tag.)  If all goes
smoothly (and it never does), we need to have some time elapse and
implementations interoperate before submitting for the next level of
standard - Draft.

So, earmark issues encountered when implementing, more for input to the
next set of documents.  (Of course, if we need to recycle at Proposed or
resubmit, then we can consider refinements.)

None of what I have said addresses the data consistency comment by Scott, I
just wanted to address the last sentence.

At 10:16 AM -0500 2/20/02, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>Thomas,
>
>I didn't write such text in the requirements document because I thought it
>crosses into being a data consistency issue rather than being a functional
>protocol requirement.  Plus, with the document now in the hands of the IESG
>I'm loath to make any changes that aren't directed by them as part of the
>last call process.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                NAI Labs
Phone: +1 443-259-2352                      Email: lewis@tislabs.com

Do you have the time to listen to me whine
About nothing and everything all at once?
-- Green Day ("Basket Case")

Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.