I refer to any past, present or future version of the charter that departs from the assumption that the DNS is the right protocol to address a set of discrete problems that includes the candidate drafts of the original E2MD BoF. As I read the version you point to below, for example, it does suggest that the overlap dialing optimization requirement should be addressed with a DNS-based solution. I think it remains unclear whether a DNS-based proposal is the optimal way to address overlap dialing.
Jon Peterson NeuStar, Inc. On 10/23/10 11:00 AM, "Bernie Hoeneisen" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Jon On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, Peterson, Jon wrote: > I wouldn't say that the message of the dns-applications draft is "do not > charter > E2MD," in so far as it does not reject the problem space. It does try to > capture > arguments that had previously only been presented anecdotally, and it moreover > intends in the future to capture the ongoing discussions we've now begun > about these > subjects. I do however maintain that the previous E2MD chater is a collection > of > problems that have different underlying requirements, and that bringing them > under a > common architectural umbrella may obscure their individual problem spaces > rather than > illuminating them. Also, the insistence of the charter on DNS-based > solutions, as > opposed to solutions that might not involve the DNS, seemed unnecessarily > confining, > for send-n and other mechanisms under consideration. Which E2MD charter do you refer to in this part of your email? Is it the one we prepared for Maastricht (IETF-78) as publised on: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/e2md/trac/wiki/ProposedCharter or some older version or even both? May I ask you clarify this. cheers, Bernie -- http://ucom.ch/ Tech Consulting for Internet Standardization
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
