And the technology that my team is pushing would be Saratoga:
http://saratoga.sf.net
which has interoperable implementations that can do 50Mbps in perl, a decade of
operational experience in its application domain, and mature drafts.
But this is in the transport area, and TSV has somewhat limited resources, so
it's outside the span of attention from a wg. But still worth documenting as
experimental.
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
________________________________________
From: Yoav Nir [ynir(_at_)checkpoint(_dot_)com]
Sent: 19 April 2013 10:02
To: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng)
Cc: <worley(_at_)ariadne(_dot_)com>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG
Review)
Only that you know enough people so that you could push a new technology even
without attending, although you would need to collaborate with some people who
do go. But pushing a new technology requires team building anyway.
The same should apply to other non-attenders who have gained some reputation.
On Apr 19, 2013, at 11:23 AM, l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk wrote:
and the point of your ad-hominem argument is what, exactly?
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/publications/internet-drafts
________________________________________
From: Yoav Nir [ynir(_at_)checkpoint(_dot_)com]
Sent: 18 April 2013 15:18
To: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng)
Cc: worley(_at_)ariadne(_dot_)com; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG
Review)
Looking in Jari's statistics site, you have three RFCs. One of those has
several co-authors that I recognize as current "goers". You also have a
current draft with several co-authors, but I have no idea whether they're
"goers" or not. Anyway, you are not a hermit. Through the RFCs and drafts
that you have co-authored, you know people who do attend.