Re: Application "core protocol" BOF/WG idea


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


-----Original Message-----
From: Randall Gellens <>
To: Chris Newman <>;
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
>> this is a good/bad idea?  Any suggestions to improve the proposed
>> 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