Re: [alto] Question about unified framework for properties

[Lingli Deng <[e-mail]>]

Hi Wendy,
Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you that the two are complementary to each other.BTW, please let me know if you decide to work on drafting such a framework, I would be happy to read it.
Regards,Lingli 

Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 11:28:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Question about unified framework for properties
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail]

Lingli,
My "Unified Approach To Properties" proposal was independent of yours: you proposed new properties, I proposed a new framework for accessing properties. The two proposals complement each other, rather than compete with each other.
I have not filed a draft for it, though. I came up with the idea too late to submit a formal draft for Dallas, so I just presented the slides. Unfortunately, the audience's response was less enthusiastic than I had hoped, and it seemed like there were other more pressing issues, so I did not bother to formalize the proposal with a draft.
But I still think it is a good idea. If anyone thinks this is worth pursuing, please let me know!
	- Wendy Roome
From:  Lingli Deng <[e-mail]>
Date:  Wed, June 3, 2015 at 02:54
To:  Wendy Roome <[e-mail]>
Cc:  "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Question about unified framework for properties

Hi Wendy,
I am currently working on a revision for draft on Extended endpoint properties (I.D-draft-deng-alto-p2p-ext),  and noticed there is concern about potential overlap during last meeting with your proposal on a unified framework for properties.I am afraid that I was not there for the onsite discussion, but after reading your slides, I feel it seems to be orthogonal with endpoint properties. What do you think?BTW, I could not find any draft for the proposed framework. Are you working on such a document or is there anybody else doing this? If so, I would be happy to read it and double check its relevance with or effect on our work on endpoint properties.
Regards,Lingli