hi,
i don't see any harm in there being several efforts. the problem seems
broad enough that part will be in scope for the irtf and part in scope
for the ietf. and some stuff may be relevant but may end up in scope
for neither. i must admit it is hard for me to know which is which at
this point. (other then by resort to authority of course; i.e. if Sean
says x is not in scope for his list who am i to argue.)
and i think there will be value in comparing and discussing the
outcomes and approaches of all the separate
design/study/discussion/research/engineering/... groups.
i don't think it partisanship for folks to create several requirements
statements and several frameworks and then to sit down together to see
if we can't harmonize the work and divide it up between the groups.
and i think there is more then enough work to go around. so i would
prefer to see us talking about the issues then to see us quibbling
over the turf. no matter which list we are using.
a.
--Avri Doria +1 401 663 5024
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT