Hi Ned,
At 14:37 15-07-2011, Ned Freed wrote:
While I agree that this should be dealt with, I don't have an opinion
regarding venue, mostly because I confess to not really understanding
the purpose of either YAM or APPSAWG (the latter I only became aware of
recently) at this point. I do note that EAI is removing a much more
significant restrition (another one that was well-intentioned but
ultimately wrongminded) on encodings of subtypes of message, and this
is being done directly in the EAI WG.
Prior to the chartering of APPSAWG, there was an informal discussion
about the topic last year. I have some recollection of the comments
about the idea of having an area-wide working group.
A new charter [1] has been proposed for YAM. The matter is on the
agenda for the YAM WG session at IETF 81. I hope that the
participants will make judicious use of the face time. The purpose
of the YAM WG is not to pick a fight with the EAI WG. It would be a
bad idea anyway for obvious reasons. :-)
I forgot to mention (off-list conversation) to Murray that RFC 3462
which is currently a Draft Standard is listed as a work item for this
WG. If an update which does not affect advancement is needed by the
MARF working group, I personally am open to discussing about it in
this working group. I sent an email to Gregory Vaudreuil, the author
of RFC 3462, about the proposed charter. I have not received any reply yet.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00642.html
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
