Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
It's difficult to write a charter without actually designing the
This is an interesting opinion. May I translate that to mean that there
is already a solution in the minds of the people who wrote the charter?
Nope. Who has been following the p2pi list for the last five months
probably knows that there are three different approaches (solutions?)
floating around: the "sorting oracle" (described in a SIGCOMM paper
authored by folks from TU-Berlin, a variant of which is IDIPS), P4P
(soon to be published as I-D and, IIRC, described in another SIGCOMM
paper), and Stanislav's proposal (discussed in Dublin and on the list:
wrote the charter had all those approaches clear in mind and took
special care that none of them got ruled out.
Why then would we bother with the proposed requirements effort, writing
down a problem statement and all the rest? Why not put an RFC number on
It also makes me wonder what your opinion on the following from 2418.
" - Is the proposed work plan an open IETF effort or is it an attempt
to "bless" non-IETF technology where the effect of input from IETF
participants may be limited?"
I don't know Lisa's opinion, but am sure that this is not the case here.
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Ietf mailing list