Hilarie thanks for your clarification. I'll review midcom more closely
to check into overlap. I do agree with you and Alex that we should avoid
any overlaps, or misunderstandings with any WG. But, I am now a bit
confused because I thought we were past the point of the this problem
being considered an opes problem from the earlier (what I thought to be)
thorough problem discussions on this e-mail thread. Am I missing
something? ....Also, I don't think that I'd represent my posture as
"don't care about anything else". I am investigating how to get this
problem solved with an open standards solution. I just want to get it
right and any help you can give me is much appreciated. :-)
Regards John
Alex Rousskov wrote:
I agree with Hilarie that we should be careful about potential
overlaps with MIDCOM WG charter. I would suggest that we still start
with a concise but clear-enough proposal that, among other things,
defines "flow participant discovery" problem and lists possible
solution directions. Having such a document at hand, we can do a more
meaningful evaluation of MIDCOM conflicts.
Alex.
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman wrote:
If you want to have opes rechartered to include flow participant
discovery you may need to explain why it should be part of opes
and not part of midcom. The answer "because I want it work with
opes and don't care about anything else" might not be enough to
convince the authorities.
Hilarie