Re: [nbs] NBS conflict with MEXT

Pete Resnick <> Wed, 03 November 2010 14:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04CC43A6ABD; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 07:21:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HsTEPtXabHBZ; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 07:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C998F3A69C0; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 07:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1288794110; x=1320330110; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding; z=Message-ID:=20<>|Date:=20We d,=203=20Nov=202010=2022:21:30=20+0800|From:=20Pete=20Res nick=20<>|User-Agent:=20Mozilla/5.0 =20(Macintosh=3B=20U=3B=20Intel=20Mac=20OS=20X=2010.6=3B =20en-US=3B=20rv: |MIME-Version:=201.0|To:=20David=20Harrington=20<ietfdbh@>|CC:=20'The=20IESG'=20<>,=20<nbs>,=20'WG=20Chairs'=0D=0A=09<> |Subject:=20Re:=20NBS=20conflict=20with=20MEXT |References:=20<BF345F63074F8040B58C00A186FCA57F29F6C36FE><00EC5F89-8402-446C-A74E-72><243735B8-AFCA-4CD3-9364-FFE5ECC6>=09<62D06173-1430-4C9E-B153-F778E8E86686@isi .edu>=20<3C11E378B70942BABE4F9F1123324049@23FX1C1> |In-Reply-To:=20<3C11E378B70942BABE4F9F1123324049@23FX1C1 >|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"ISO-8859-1" =3B=20format=3Dflowed|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit; bh=K4Duuv8hMQXbhXHuTekLfdhSK4AkEj02hyEnZ5akAms=; b=hbbsTlZZZUSscvmjKVnNRY0deLqPWreZmCs+ssXNPK+AUekT85qjvHbI tAJkdFP+K6N6Jbso4JF0nigBdO9FCJy9ZflLT3VCK/hSSl5JUXmeir6WP saL5ociXCA21XZ0dYwW0gogiJ3nlE5KdKPuYpd6grV5TEgM6ChTzsFVv9 k=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6155"; a="60475195"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 03 Nov 2010 07:21:50 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.58,287,1286175600"; d="scan'208";a="17057835"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 03 Nov 2010 07:21:49 -0700
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 07:21:49 -0700
Received: from Macintosh-4.local ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 07:21:42 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 22:21:30 +0800
From: Pete Resnick <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Harrington <>
References: <><><> <> <3C11E378B70942BABE4F9F1123324049@23FX1C1>
In-Reply-To: <3C11E378B70942BABE4F9F1123324049@23FX1C1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 'WG Chairs' <>, 'The IESG' <>,
Subject: Re: [nbs] NBS conflict with MEXT
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Name based sockets discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 14:21:44 -0000

On 11/2/10 7:58 AM, David Harrington wrote:
> NBS touches a wide variety of protocols and layers.
Touching a variety of protocols is a justification to not worry about a 
particular WG it is conflicting with. But layers is a different matter. 
You currently have NBS, ostensibly a protocol which at the very least 
will be serving the Apps layer, conflicting with the Apps *AREA* 
meeting. If most Apps people (and BOTH Apps ADs) cannot be there to 
comment on this BOF, I simply don't see the point in having it.
> The API bridges between an Application and a transport, and work could be done in either area.
You bet. Which is why the almost complete absence of people in one of 
those two areas seems pretty darn goofy.
> As I see it, no matter where you put this BOF, it will conflict with
> some other scheduled sessions.
Again, one thing to conflict with a WG, another to conflict with an 
entire interested area.
> So my tendency is to say, let's just leave the BOF where it is.
I think this is phenomenally short sighted.
> (and I consider the WG-Chairs list the wrong place for this
> discussion. Please use  list.
>  )

This is a BOF. Chairs who might not be aware of the BOF or have 
particular interest in the work area still might be significant input on 
this kind of conflict.


Pete Resnick<>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102