daisy@watson.ibm.com Thu, 09 April 1992 19:54 UTC

Received: from nri.nri.reston.va.us by ietf.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02865; 9 Apr 92 15:54 EDT
Received: from nri.reston.va.us by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa26488; 9 Apr 92 15:57 EDT
Received: from aggie.ucdavis.edu by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa26463; 9 Apr 92 15:57 EDT
Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu by aggie.ucdavis.edu (5.61/UCD2.04) id AA06293; Thu, 9 Apr 92 12:26:20 -0700
Received: by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (5.61/UCD2.04) id AA02017; Thu, 9 Apr 92 12:05:00 -0700
Sender: ietf-ndb-request@ucdavis.edu
Received: from watson.ibm.com by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (5.61/UCD2.04) id AA01632; Thu, 9 Apr 92 11:49:49 -0700
Message-Id: <9204091849.AA01632@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>
Received: from yktvmz.watson.ibm.com by watson.ibm.com (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6409; Thu, 09 Apr 92 14:49:17 EDT
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 14:49:14 EDT
From: daisy@watson.ibm.com
To: ietf-ndb@ucdavis.edu

I did not forget about replying Edward's note.  I am sorry about
the delay.
Edward may not know the story behind our working group.  Russ Hobby
and I tried so hard to invite the SQL Access group to join IETF
before we formed the NETDATA working group; however, it seemed that the
SQL Access group was not interested in joining.  It is true that we
should combine all efforts in the same area; however, combining efforts
is a two-way communication.  I have contacted someone in the ISO
standard group and hope that we can work together.
NETDATA is one of the IETF's working groups, and I never wanted to mix
it up with IBM or any other vendors.  It is the place to get the
work done.  The reason I mentioned IBM was because that Edward was
questioning about no implementation of NDB protocol.
NETDATA had several good meeting sessions in the past year. I always
posted the minutes which are the report for the meetings.  The minutes
are also published in the proceedings; unfortunately, the forum was not
very active.  We encourage all members or whoever is interested in the
topic to give our working group some constructive suggestions.
Earlier there was a comment that the NDB draft does not have enough
detail information.  In Santa Fa's meeting, we decided that we should
have two drafts.  One is the protocol itself which should be as precise
as possible; the other is the implementation information which will
describe all the information and details on implementation.  If anyone
feels that any area is short of information or needs to be modified,
you are welcome to write your idea to our mailing list.  We can discuss
it and make improvement.
I will look into the draft and add more details on implementation.  In
the meantime, any technical topic is welcome to be discussed here.

Daisy Shen
  •   daisy