I certainly agree.
Yaron
On 01/30/2012 03:11 AM, Stephen Hanna wrote:
Paul,
Sorry to be late in responding. I've been working with other
Juniper folks to figure out which of us should volunteer to
edit the P2P VPN problem statement. But never mind about that.
I am willing to edit the P2P VPN problem statement document.
I know that we need to have a draft promptly and get some serious
discussion going on the email list before IETF 83. There are
plenty of interesting questions related to requirements that
we'll want to discuss on the list and in person at IETF 83.
Praveen Sathyanarayan from Juniper has already committed to
write an Informational RFC documenting our current solution.
And I think it's premature to start work on the common
solution before we've agreed on the problem statement or
at least nailed down the main issues. Don't you agree?
Thanks,
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Paul Hoffman
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 11:49 AM
To: IPsecme WG
Subject: [IPsec] NUDGE: Starting work on our new charter items
[[ There has not been enough response yet, by far. ]]
We have a new charter. Do we have any volunteers to start work on the
two documents we committed to work on?
Related: we should consider having a face-to-face meeting at the
upcoming IETF in Paris, but only if there is value for the newly-
chartered work. In my mind, that means both a first draft submitted
*and* interesting questions that would benefit from face-to-face
discussion instead of just work on the list. Do people believe we will
have that?
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
