At 19:52 25/01/2006, Tony Hansen wrote:
My opinion is that this group has extended past the point of ennui. At
this point, I don't see any further work occurring in this group as a
chartered working group, and it *needs* to shut down.
If there *are* people interested in further work on the topic of opes,
it can be done using individual submissions. The mailing list will
Right now, I don't see the need for the OPES group to meet in Dallas.
If you have comments on *any* of the above, *please* send them to the
OPES group list, ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org(_dot_)
I agree with this. But I *have* interests I expressed for years.
These interests have not been followed on this list because they do
not fit the current charter and the vision we initially agreed. I
accepted it but I am afraid the ennui is the consequence. May be my
vision and the lack of time (as you may know I am victim of a time
wasting commercial/political DoS :-)) will lead to the same ennui.
But if this group is to stay as a SIG without a real charter, would
it not be an acceptable kind of topic?
I note that my vision (already documented in the past) calls for
architectural considerations. It considers OPES and ONES (Open
Network Extended Services) as a way to respect the end to end
principle but also to provide network intelligence. I also note that
I introduced an appeal to the IAB to ask if the
Multilingual/Multilateral Internet was an IETF matter or not. I
consider ONES as necessary to that architecture. If the response of
the IAB matches the IESG first negative response, I will deal with
the issue through an International Network usagge TF we plan to
maintain a documentation on the entire digital convergence, from a
user point of view.
I would suggest the IETF keeps this mailing list for topics like
that. As an observatory SIG. If a Draft is introduced, some members
could interested working on it as an individual common text?