Re: multi: Re: Protocol operations proposal deadline / shield-eos -...

[Dave Shield <D.T.Shield@csc.liv.ac.uk>]

> >   In the short run, I have no problems putting forward both smaller
> >   and larger solutions, as long as the progress of the larger
> >   solutions isn't impacted....
> >                    ..... iff [sic] the WG has sufficient energy to
> >   carry multiple proposals forward, this doesn't bother me in the
> >   slightest if there is consensus to do so.
> 
> The WG has not had the cycles to produce one solution; as chair, working on
> two solutions is a non-starter.

<sigh>
OK - I withdraw the capability negotiation proposal, and the list of
suggestions I made on August 2nd.   It seems clear that the concensus
of opinion is to concentrate on new protocol operations, and there's
little interest in investigating a "micro-evolutionary" approach.

I suppose that means that there's little point in submitting the
"extended error reporting" draft I've just put together?

Dave