- From: John Strassner <jstrassn@cisco.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 18:16:43 -0800
- To: "Chris Newman" <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com>, <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, "Randall Gellens" <randy@qualcomm.com>
Chris, I think that this is a great idea and has been sorely needed for a while now. I also empathize with Michael's comments. I'm a bit overloaded at the moment, but I would like to lend whatever support I can. regards, John -----Original Message----- From: Randall Gellens <randy@qualcomm.com> To: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com>; discuss@apps.ietf.org <discuss@apps.ietf.org> Date: Thursday, January 28, 1999 3:17 PM Subject: Re: Application "core protocol" BOF/WG idea >At 9:31 AM -0800 1/28/99, Chris Newman wrote: > > >> I'm interested in feedback on the following BOF/WG idea. Do you think >> this is a good/bad idea? Any suggestions to improve the proposed charter? >> Anyone interested in being a document editor of either of the two >> proposed documents or interested in WG chair/co-chair position? > > >I think it would be a good idea. A quick read of the straw charter >shows it contains those things that I can think of off the top of my >head. I also think that, while this could be very useful effort, it >could also degenerate and thus needs a tight reign on scope. The >work should definitely be done in steps: > > > 1. Identify common problems > 2. Identify solutions used in various protocols > 3. Analyze solutions: what elements worked, what didn't > 4. Publish informational document > 5. Identify core set of problems for new skeleton protocol > > > > >I'd be willing to be a document editor or chair/co-chair. >
Received on Thursday, 28 January 1999 21:17:08 UTC