IETF stuff [Was: Digest of Tim's mail ]

"Daniel W. Connolly" <>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 94 12:02:27 EDT
Message-id: <>
Precedence: bulk
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <>
To: Multiple recipients of list <>
Subject: IETF stuff [Was: Digest of Tim's mail ]
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Implementation Group (Private)
In message <>, Tim Berners-Lee writes:
>I realize that I have had no replies because all my messages
>are bounced by the list processor still. 

I'd have to agree that I'm not impressed with the mail server...
it's STILL munging From: headers. BAD BAD BAD.

>Date: 30 June 1994
>If this work is to be ratified by the IETF, some group
>must be cast as an IETF working group to discuss it.
>Experience shows that if the experts edita doc and turn it 
>over to a random group to deliberate over, it falls
>appart.  This means that this group who are doing the
>work must be teh IETF working group.  There are some
>pressures to do this.

Could you elaborate? I'm a little confused. I thought that the whole
reason why we started this excercise was that the IETF had proved to
be the wrong place to publish the HTML spec. Perhaps I got the wrong
impression -- perhaps the IIIR WG was a bad place for the HTML
document, but the IETF is still the right place over all.

>What do you think?  The meachnisms of archived dicsussion
>are all there -- the group mailing list could be specified
>as www-html, and this list could be kept an editor's list,
>or the html-ig list could be opened as the working group list.

I vote for www-html, based on quality of service. The newbie factor
isn't too bad on that list either.

>  We would establish a set of milestones
>and a strict charter

Blech. Oh well... whatever it takes to get all this mess overwith.

>Who would be able to come to meetings at the next IETF
>in Toronto July 25-29? 

Dunno. I wasn't planning on it, but I'd like to be there, especially
if the rest of "the players" will be there.