Danny,
Let me try and answer these points. It may be difficult since members
from Japan will not meet until 4/11.
>do I understand that this is a joint charter between PWGB and PWBC?
It was drafted as a possible joint charter. It is up to PWG/C members
as to how they would like to proceed. Either as a separate group or as
part of 1394 PWG with their officers as co-chair, etc.
Of course that would require a vote, however, I got the feeling in
Austin that this was considered a good idea by members in attendance
from both groups.
>1. How are contentious issues to be handled between the two groups.
>Joint meetings? Were there any "bylaws" established for approval/disapproval
>of specifications.
As you can see in the revised charter, the first specification
to be developed is the "Device and Service Discovery" mechanism.
I think once we've identified that there is work to be done, it will
be accomplished under a formal standards organization (i.e. IEEE ).
2. I did not see any mention of an IEEE standard being developed, should
that be in the charter?
Good point. I'm open to comments about the draft. As I mentioned
above, I think we need to move identified tasks to a WG status
within an establish standards body.
3. In listing the two specifications, I did not see a data transport
mentioned. I assume that will need to be developed or adopted.
I would agree that transport fits into the second ( or other)
specification area.
FYI - The Canon proposal was discussed on Thursday and it allows
for more than one type of transport and data format. I've posted it
to the server and will update the links to point to it today.
Regards,
Greg LeClair
********** Epson Research Center ***********
Gregory LeClair 2833 Junction Ave, Ste. 200
greg at erc.epson.com San Jose, CA 95134
408.474.0500 x 3610 (FAX) 408.474.0511