My message was NOT to discourage anyone. The message the needs to be understood is that we will move forward with only a single approach. That approach may be contained in one or more of the proposals put forward.
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.
Also, for the same reasons listed above, if you have written the extended error reporting draft I encourage you to post it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Shield [mailto:D.T.Shield@csc.liv.ac.uk]
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 09:57
> To: Waters, Glenn [CAR:IO47:EXCH]
> Cc: Wes Hardaker; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: multi: Re: Protocol operations proposal deadline / shield-eos
> > > 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
> > two solutions is a non-starter.
> 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?