Re: Networking Task Force draft charter

Le mercredi 10 décembre 2014 à 06:59 -0500, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
> > I'm interested in any feedback, but in particular on:
> > * whether people would be interested to dedicate some of their time to
> > some of the proposed deliverables
> 
> Thanks Dom. This is a good start and since it appears I'll have some 
> spare cycles next year, I would be interested in contributing.

Great, thanks! Thanks to Mohammed and Ryoichi for volunteering too!

> > * whether this is a good enough first list of deliverables or if we
> > should add/remove some

> Yes, I think so. It seems like some type of survey/inventory of prior 
> art should be one of the "tasks". Perhaps that's what you envision 
> vis-à-vis the "evaluating" and "identifying" tasks.

That was my idea indeed; if you think this should be clarified, I
welcome pull requests :)

>  One reason I ask is 
> because I am wondering if you expect the APIs listed to be some type of 
> "onion skin" wrapper (or abstraction) over "existing" APIs specified by, 
> f.ex., some other organization, or if you expect the TF to write new 
> ("clean room") APIs.

Clearly, I would prefer we use existing APIs where available, and
assuming they can be made to work in an operator-neutral way (which I
think is a requisite for applicability to Web apps). But indeed, any
work in this space would need to start by looking at what's defined,
what's deployed, and what's usable.

> Lastly, rather than have this IG create the API specifications, perhaps 
> it would be "safer" from an IP perspective to have the IG create UCs and 
> Requirements for the APIs and then start a new CG to do the actual 
> specification work (and thus provide an opportunity for some IP 
> commitments that won't be obtained if the IG creates the APIs).

That is indeed what I meant, but I've clarified this in the list of
deliverables.

Dom

Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:34:58 UTC