RE: IRTF summary & pros/cons

["Scanlon, Paul " <Paul.Scanlon@qwest.com>]

Randy - 

I think we're at the point where we are trying to answer the "..."
"why is this whole topic
interesting?  if the cdn wannabe wg
  o has consensus on a charter
  o has the area directors in sync with that charter
  o has some drafts in play
  o has an active discussion on those drafts
then cdn will become a wg.  if not, then ..."

We have achieved all of the above, we act like a wg, behave like one,
produce and have production roadmap like one, so what is the problem with
being blessed as one?

We are currently trying to fill in more options for the "..."  

I can certainly see issues of research that CDI members could research in an
IRTF role, however, I don't think that gets us where anyone had intended to
go.  These standards are important to Networks.

Paul Scanlon
IP Architecture
Qwest Communications



-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com]
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 9:00 AM
To: Phil Rzewski
Cc: cdn@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: IRTF summary & pros/cons


> - An editor gave the example of AAA and how having the "IRTF umbrella kept
> AAA in the game"

this makes no sense.  i am the ietf area director for ops, under which aaa
falls.  the aaa working group in the ietf is extremely active, and hopes to
have the converged protocol before the london meeting.

there is also an aaaarch irtf research group, working on some long-range
research ideas.  it is not exprected, required, or strongly desired that
aaarch produce something soon or even implementable.  they're doing
research, a perfectly valid activity.

but all in all, what is the actual issue here?  i.e. why is this whole topic
interesting?  if the cdn wannabe wg
  o has consensus on a charter
  o has the area directors in sync with that charter
  o has some drafts in play
  o has an active discussion on those drafts
then cdn will become a wg.  if not, then ...

randy