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

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

> I would agree the consensus does not appear to be building for the "micro"
> approach -- however please do not withdraw you draft (since it is published
> I'm not sure what it means to withdraw). The work is important so that we
> have the range of solutions that the WG can evaluate. Even if we decide not
> to choose the "micro" approach I think that we should still look at the
> ideas presented in your draft and understand if they should be used in some
> other approach.

OK - thanks for the encouragement.
I'll continue to try and justify my ideas for a while longer, then.


> Also, for the same reasons listed above, if you have written the extended
> error reporting draft I encourage you to post it. 

I've now submitted this to the internet drafts address - it should appear
in due course.
   I gather that I shouldn't have announced the earlier draft as being
available "privately", and rather should have waited until it appeared
on the i-d site.  My apologies for this inadvertant breach of procedure.

Dave