From: Erland Sommarskog (sommar-usefor@algonet.se)
Date: Mon Aug 13 2001 - 14:52:32 CDT
Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk) writes:
> However, if people want to do so, then we have to discuss it. The sad
> thing in this case is that only 3 people are taking significant part in
> the discussion. We could do with some more opinion (paricularly on the
> simplfied proposal I have put forward).
To be perfectly frank I would not protest loudly if mvgroup was moved
to an experimental RFC. If memory serves, mvgroup is there because
Claus André Färber wrote the text, and no one protested about it
being included.
Had Claus by then released the idea as an experimental RFC, maybe there
had been some implementations around.
I certainly think that mvgroup is a feature that is long overdue. Then
yet again, it may be too overdue by now. We could have some use for it
in Sweden with our double hierarchies, but since it would take 5-10
years we could actually use mvgroup to kill swnet.*, I would not say
that it is an urgent matter.
Charles's simplified proposal seemed reasonable to me, but I can't say
that I delved into the fine details.
And maybe the fact that not very many engage in the discussion on mvgroup
is a token of that taking it out from our draft to an experimental draft
will not cause any major fuzz.
-- Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, sommar@algonet.se