Longer or more meetings?

[Marshall Rose]

> > eric - i don't think that "protocol quality" is the thing that is
> > "necessary and sufficient".
> 
> Absolutely. Isn't HTTP proof of that?

pity you left off the important part of my reply to you:

> > i think that it's really
> >
> >	just enough quality delivered in a timely fashion
> >
> > philosophically, in the past we behaved as an engineering organization
> > that delivered incremental solutions. the 90-10 rule was our
> > friend. market forces understand this, and certainly big (and small
> > vendors) do too!
    
    
> On the other hand, there are plenty of examples of protocols which
> were designed by industry consortia that are badly flawed because
> they didn't think to consult outsiders with clue (cf. WEP).

actually, I think the WEP guys don't consider their stuff badly flawed,
where folks differ with them is what the requirements are for the
problem being solved.  (obviously, the security community doesn't agree
with the requirements that the WEP guys decide to meet.)
    

what you call "quality" (and i call "competence" is important).
timeliness is important.
there are probably at least two other things that are important.
    
the tricky part is getting the right balance.
    
/mtr