Thank you for your statement and 'call to arms'. Although it is quite
clear, the interpretation of the first dictate might stand a bit of
elaboration as we decide how to proceed. Specifically:
"(1) The revised draft must include a list of the
substantive changes to RFC1759 and the justification for
each change (the changes *must* be for clarification and
correction, they *cannot* be new features)."
I take this to mean that every substantive change (including each
additional object) must 'fix' something that the documented
implementation experiences show as being broken. Presumably,
substantive changes intended to address perceived but not demonstrated
deficiencies would keep the new RFC at proposed standard level. Is
this a correct assessment?
Seasons greetings to the PWG.
Bill Wagner, DPI