Subject: Re: [EAI] Getting done quick

From: Shawn Steele <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 18:19:39 +0000

> I don't know how others in the WG --especially those who are
> likely to have to do the work-- feel about this but my
> preference is that we try to get a complete and competent
> protocol spec out as quickly as we can now, focusing on what
> people should do in the short term/ early transition phrase as
> appropriate.  We should then move to revise as soon as we have
> implementations and deployment experience.  In other words, I
> think we will need to revise in a few years or less anyway and
> should not spend energy now trying to make sure we have all the
> language exactly correct.
> Again, that is mostly personal opinion, but it is more
> consistent with the objective to get things done quickly than a
> lot of fine-tuning.

+ 1000.  I very strongly agree.  We have a tendency to discuss details that, realistically, aren't really going to become obvious until EAI has some broad deployment, at which time the RFC can be updated if necesary.  

We cannot be perfect here, so I'd rather avoid fine-tuning.  In practice, 99% of the things we've been discussing have no impact on the experimental implementations we (Microsoft) have been playing with.

-Shawn

 
http://blogs.msdn.com/shawnste