Re: where is OPES?

[jfcm <[e-mail]>]

At 19:52 25/01/2006, Tony Hansen wrote:
>My opinion is that this group has extended past the point of ennui. At
>this point, I don't see any further work occurring in this group as a
>chartered working group, and it *needs* to shut down.
>
>If there *are* people interested in further work on the topic of opes,
>it can be done using individual submissions. The mailing list will
>
>Right now, I don't see the need for the OPES group to meet in Dallas.
>
>If you have comments on *any* of the above, *please* send them to the
>OPES group list, [e-mail].

Tony,
I agree with this. But I *have* interests I expressed for years. 
These interests have not been followed on this list because they do 
not fit the current charter and the vision we initially agreed. I 
accepted it but I am afraid the ennui is the consequence. May be my 
vision and the lack of time (as you may know I am victim of a time 
wasting commercial/political DoS :-)) will lead to the same ennui. 
But if this group is to stay as a SIG without a real charter, would 
it not be an acceptable kind of topic?

I note that my vision (already documented in the past) calls for 
architectural considerations. It considers OPES and ONES (Open 
Network Extended Services) as a way to respect the end to end 
principle but also to provide network intelligence. I also note that 
I introduced an appeal to the IAB to ask if the 
Multilingual/Multilateral Internet was an IETF matter or not. I 
consider ONES as necessary to that architecture. If the response of 
the IAB matches the IESG first negative response, I will deal with 
the issue through an International Network usagge TF we plan to 
maintain a documentation on the entire digital convergence, from a 
user point of view.

I would suggest the IETF keeps this mailing list for topics like 
that. As an observatory SIG. If a Draft is introduced, some members 
could interested working on it as an individual common text?
jfc