If anyone has a different opinon, please respond.
Ron Bergman
Dataproducts Corp.
On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Harry Lewis wrote:
> I agree with Ron that we need to see v.83 ASAP!
>
> >I propose that version 0.83 not include the changes to split the
> >attribute table or to add a coded character set attribute. Lets
> >keep those items open for now until we can reach an agreement.
>
> There were many decisions made in Nashua and a major re-indexing post
> Nashua... all of which needs to be seen.
>
> With respect to the issues... I have posted my responses to both the table
> split and char set issues and have received no further "rebuttal". Aside from
> believing that it's just way too late for major changes such as the table
> split, I believe I have effectively argued the benefits of leaving things
> as they are. As for char set... we have established that we can't always
> rely on the submission protocol to "localize" the attributes which are passed
> in.
>
> In Nashua, we had addressed all open issues. I believe any currently open
> issue has been introduced since Nashua. I know the IETF rules specify that
> consensus happens on the e-mail, not in the meeting. I don't know whether to
> characterize the lack of e-mail discussion regarding these last issues as
> resulting from:
>
> 1. Stalemate
> 2. Vacations
> 3. Lack of interest
> 4. Giving-up
>
> We can't keep having meetings, closing issues and then bringing issues back
> up on e-mail but not resolving them there. I think we should declare the period
> between now and Seattle (about 3 weeks... should be plenty of time) as the
> time to openly air your thoughts on any and all JMP known issues with the
> understanding that Seattle will nail the lid on the first job MIB once and for
> all and agree that any unresolved or new issues that arise after Seattle, by
> definition, go into some future draft (like the printer MIB).
>
>
> Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
>