Remember folks its just a draft, which in IETF terms is little
more than a mail message. ;-) It needs to be an RFC to
have arrived -- it still has many iterations to go through
as an RFC. If the group thinks that it is tim eto put it
forward as a proposed standard, then that could be done at the
meeting conditional on certain edits goin in, and actually
havingthem in an online copy of course helps. So the internet
draft is godo for people outside the meeting, but the meeting can
discuss anything online which has been on this list.
Murray, the ICADD did make it into 2.0 they just didn't get into that
draft of 2.0 but the WG wants them in, so they are in its just up to the
editors.
That ID is a draft spec of 2.0. 2.0 will follow a track through
the standards process while 3.0 starts on the same track behind
it. This slight multidimenionality follows from the fact that
we can't in fact just do one thing after another we have to don them
in parallel.
Murry wrote:
>When will PostScript and HTML versions of the official Internet Draft
>be available to members of this mailing list?
The phrase "official Internet Draft" is more or less a contradiction
in terms. It is a snapshot produced as often as possible.
There is nothing wrong with routinely rolling out a new ID every week.
TACTICS
Dan asks whether we should let the draft go as informational now
or get it perfect and release it as history. Perhaps we can
just release it imperfect as a proposed standard and let the
polishing be done as it spends its time moving though to draft
and real standard. If the IESG don't like that approach, then
fall back on the informational way.
MEETING
I'll be happy to facilitate the afternoon meeting.
I think that the HTML 3.0 discussion may be more focussable than
just "directions" and build a list of things to be included, fixed
or written up.
Erik, when you draw up the agenda please list the required reading
(the ID and Dave's document) conspicuously. I suggest those who
have read the required reading sit at the front of the room to be
able to have a reasonably tight discusion. :-)
Tim