RE: [EME] the end of EME?

I doubt that it much mattered whether or not we met with HIP.  In the end,
no-one stepped up to put real cycles into this work.  It was worth a try, but
in the end no sense in trying to push a dead cat with a rope to water.

PF

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Melinda Shore [mailto:mshore@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 9:47 AM
> To: Tilman Wolf; EME@irtf.org
> Subject: Re: [EME] the end of EME?
> 
> On 1/30/08 9:26 AM, "Tilman Wolf" <wolf@ecs.umass.edu> wrote:
> > After publishing
> > draft-irtf-eme-francis-nutss-design-00 last year and holding a good 
> > meeting at IETF-69 (jointly with HIPRG), activities have died down.
> 
> I'm not sure that things might not have gone differently if 
> we hadn't met with HIP, but there's no way to know for sure.
> 
> I think there's a broader question here, and that's the role 
> of signaling work in the IETF.  It's my general sense that 
> neither customers nor manufacturers like out-of-band 
> signaling very much, which suggests that in practice (for an 
> engineering
> organization) it's not going to be a very successful way to 
> solve problems.
> 
> Melinda
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EME mailing list
> EME@irtf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eme
> 

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