I refer to any past, present or future version of the charter that departs from
the assumption that the DNS is the right protocol to address a set of discrete
problems that includes the candidate drafts of the original E2MD BoF. As I read
the version you point to below, for example, it does suggest that the overlap
dialing optimization requirement should be addressed with a DNS-based solution.
I think it remains unclear whether a DNS-based proposal is the optimal way to
address overlap dialing.
Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.
On 10/23/10 11:00 AM, "Bernie Hoeneisen"
<bernie(_at_)ietf(_dot_)hoeneisen(_dot_)ch> wrote:
Hi Jon
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, Peterson, Jon wrote:
I wouldn't say that the message of the dns-applications draft is "do not
charter
E2MD," in so far as it does not reject the problem space. It does try to
capture
arguments that had previously only been presented anecdotally, and it moreover
intends in the future to capture the ongoing discussions we've now begun
about these
subjects. I do however maintain that the previous E2MD chater is a collection
of
problems that have different underlying requirements, and that bringing them
under a
common architectural umbrella may obscure their individual problem spaces
rather than
illuminating them. Also, the insistence of the charter on DNS-based
solutions, as
opposed to solutions that might not involve the DNS, seemed unnecessarily
confining,
for send-n and other mechanisms under consideration.
Which E2MD charter do you refer to in this part of your email?
Is it the one we prepared for Maastricht (IETF-78) as publised on:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/e2md/trac/wiki/ProposedCharter
or some older version or even both? May I ask you clarify this.
cheers,
Bernie
--
http://ucom.ch/
Tech Consulting for Internet Standardization
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf