All, As you know our already extended deadline for the formats discussion passed on Friday. Thijs is now in the unfortunate position of having to explain why we will miss our first self-assigned deliverable deadline (an implementable draft) on Thursday and I know well how it feels to have to stand in front of an audience with nothing to say, having done so twice last week (it's only with a big "personal vision only" disclaimer that I was able to say anything at the Cloud Computing Expos). Iff we can come to consensus about the format today (or at the very latest tomorrow) then we need not watch another deadline sail by and in doing so risk being declared a failure prematurely. Indeed if we can't achieve even a loose consensus after all the discussion then I may well be the first to say so - my time (and travel!) budget for OCCI has already been well exceeded and the irrelevant RF vs RAND discussion has tested what's left of my patience. Please focus on the task at hand and if you have any specific issues about the latest proposal then raise them sooner rather than later - I've put considerable effort into optimising Atom out for the most common use case (individual resources) over the weekend and by shifting metadata to HTTP headers the resulting descriptor format is far simpler than even I would have thought possible - see APIDesign<http://forge.ogf.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.occi-wg/wiki/APIDesign>for examples. On the subject of rolling our own protocol from scratch, I for one am dismissing the suggestion for reasons previously explained. I don't think this group has (nor needs) what it takes to implement an Internet protocol from the ground up and any attempt to do so would be fraught with danger, not to mention completely unnecessary given the corpus of work done by others at the IETF (who *are* geared up for such tasks). Thanks, Sam