Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
- The statement that some of the WGs in the SubIP area are about to
finish up may be deceptive. Some of the WGs are accepting new
proposals on wide-ranging topics.
This is an important point. An example is PPVPN, which is chartered to
work on specification of requirements, with new protocol work being
explicitly out-of-scope.
However, some current PPVPN IDs (and several more targetted at it) read
more like solution documents for various existing vendor schemes,
specifying packet headers and MIBs. Another indication is that those IDs
aim at standards track, whereas requirements documents would more
naturally fall under Informational or maybe BCP.
So PPVPN at least seems quite happy to go out-of-scope, and is thus
unlikely to stick to their given timeframe.
Lars
PS: I support 1/ - close SUB-IP and migrate the WGs.
--
Lars Eggert <larse(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> USC Information Sciences
Institute
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature