[standards-jig] spring cleaning!

Justin Karneges justin-jdev at affinix.com
Tue Apr 22 03:43:19 UTC 2003


> > - 41 (Jidlink) -- how does this relate to 65 and 47? retract?
>
> This doesn't seem to be useful in a world in which -65 exists (and is
> Draft). Needs to be retracted or rejected IMO.

Actually, the existence of -65 doesn't change anything.  The problem is still 
there.  -41 was made for simplifying applications that want to target both 
IBB and DTCP.  Now that S5B has superceded DTCP, I could change the JEP to 
reflect this.

Earlier this month, I threw some ideas around of how to resolve -41:
http://mailman.jabber.org/pipermail/standards-jig/2003-April/002848.html

Basically, my idea is to rename -41 to "Bytestreams" and clean it up, then 
change -47 and -65 to reflect the new inheritance and namespace.

-Justin



More information about the Standards mailing list