I agree about the dissimilar problem space.
However, I still stand by the position that IF there areas of problem overlap,
such as some policy matters, that ignoring each others requirements
is a beneficial strategy (or "Dating Relationship").
At 02:58 AM 8/8/2001, Fleischman, Eric W wrote:
I see OPES and midcom addressing very dissimilar problems. I do not view
the problems of enhancing web services (OPES) as directly related to the
problems of opening pinholes through perimeter devices in a manner
consistent with enterprise policies (midcom). I therefore do not think
that OPES has a role in providing feedback to midcom documents that is any
more relevant than the insights coming from other IETF WGs. Thus, even a
"dating relationship" is unnecessary.
> ----------
> From: Melinda Shore[SMTP:mshore(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 1:24 AM
> To: lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com; midcom(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Michael W. Condry
> Cc: Ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
> Subject: Re: [midcom] policy & duration
>
> > From: "Michael W. Condry" <condry(_at_)intel(_dot_)com>
> > To: <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>; <midcom(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
> > Cc: <Ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 3:12 AM
> > Subject: Re: [midcom] policy & duration
>
>
> > Do you think that alignment between OPES policy and MidCom policy
> > concepts should be applied where appropriate? If so, should the document
> > not reflect this?
>
> I do think that there's value in trying to keep these aligned,
> and it would probably be useful to get some feedback on our
> documents from OPES. In the interests of keeping our work
> moving forward, it would probably be best to regard midcom
> and OPES as dating rather than married.
>
> Melinda
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> midcom mailing list
> midcom(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom
>
Michael W. Condry
Director, Network Edge Technology