IETF Logo Mail Archive

[EME] Relationship betwen

Rémi Després <remi.despres@wanadoo.fr> Sat, 18 November 2006 10:23 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GlNLq-00027A-TW; Sat, 18 Nov 2006 05:23:10 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GlNLp-00026x-K7 for eme@irtf.org; Sat, 18 Nov 2006 05:23:09 -0500
Received: from smtp20.orange.fr ([193.252.22.31] helo=smtp-msa-out20.orange.fr) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GlNLo-00035m-6P for eme@irtf.org; Sat, 18 Nov 2006 05:23:09 -0500
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (APuteaux-152-1-23-6.w82-120.abo.wanadoo.fr [82.120.85.6]) by mwinf2021.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 5923B1C000AE; Sat, 18 Nov 2006 11:23:04 +0100 (CET)
X-ME-UUID: 20061118102304365.5923B1C000AE@mwinf2021.orange.fr
Message-ID: <455EDF09.6060901@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 11:23:05 +0100
From: Rémi Després <remi.despres@wanadoo.fr>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>, Saikat Guha <saikat@cs.cornell.edu>
References: <E6F7A586E0A3F94D921755964F6BE00662575C@EXCHANGE2.cs.cornell.edu> <455B48BD.5050201@isi.edu> <455B56C9.7080307@rd-iptech.com> <455B6358.4000703@isi.edu> <455C38AC.1090306@rd-iptech.com> <455CDFFF.8000500@isi.edu> <455D9BD5.7000900@wanadoo.fr> <1163775763.8736.114.camel@sioux.systems.cs.cornell.edu> <c70bc85d0611170827t36b9443fm2b5581721142b769@mail.gmail.com> <455DE7D1.6030805@isi.edu> <c70bc85d0611170940s26d906aak4241fe728be5590d@mail.gmail.com> <455DFF44.9060208@isi.edu> <1163793934.17915.52.camel@sioux.systems.cs.cornell.edu> <455E180B.4050907@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <455E180B.4050907@isi.edu>
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c3a18ef96977fc9bcc21a621cbf1174b
Cc: eme <eme@irtf.org>
Subject: [EME] Relationship betwen
X-BeenThere: eme@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: end-middle-end research group <eme.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eme>, <mailto:eme-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/eme>
List-Post: <mailto:eme@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eme-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eme>, <mailto:eme-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0075705054=="
Errors-To: eme-bounces@irtf.org


Joe Touch wrote
:
> Saikat Guha wrote:
>   
>> > Should the path forged include a TCP link or a NAT/firewall, the TCPM
>> > and BEHAVE WGs define the protocol, semantics, who sends what packet and
>> > what that means for that protocol etc. IMHO, that should be out of scope
>> > of EME.
>>     
>
> EME is a RG. IMO, it should definitely explore this interaction and
> advise the IETF, which would then help set boundaries for future
> TCPM/BEHAVE/etc. WGs. Those issues should not be driven by WGs.
>
> Joe
I agree with Joe that IETF ongoing work should NOT restrict the scope of 
an IRTF research group.
Experiments, in particular with running code, may be precious input to IETF.
TCPM/BEHAVE scopes should therefore not restrict that of EME..

As the reciprocal is also appropriate, works of EME and  TCPM/BEHAVE can 
progress in parallel, with mutual influence whenever  it happens to be 
useful.

RD

_______________________________________________
EME mailing list
EME@irtf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eme

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email