Re: GO-MHS and the central coordination point

[" (Jim Romaguera)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Urs,

(stuff deleted)

> >     o  it is seems like a good idea to merge the COSINE MHS and GO MHS services.
> > 
> >     o  however before rushing into this, as it seems quite a large step, it
> >        would be a good idea that the group understand what the 
> >        consequences/issues of such a merge would be. As no one seemed to 
> >        have a clue of what this meant in practice and no one had seen any 
> >        details on this, someone (Urs as the proposer??) should right these 
> >        down on a piece of paper. Some things mentioned that need to be 
> >        addressed are,
> >        o  what does such a merge mean in terms of policy control? i.e. who or
> >           what does this service report to? e.g. RARE OU, IETF X.400 OPS, etc
> >        o  how can it remain open if people have to pay (hard one :-)).
> 'open' and 'free of charge' are not synonyms. 
> (It would be quiet a push for OSI software if one gets it at no cost.)
> You used 'remain open' in your question which indicates that there has been
> something open before. The COSINE-MHS project assisted all networks which
> wanted to join because we felt it advantageous for everybody. The COSINE-MHS
> project was aimed for the European networks only but we just did not ask for
> permission so we got no answer, simple old trick.

==> As the person who fought for and instigated the policy, I sort 
    of understand that point :-). But seriously, if now that policy is no 
    longer viable or needs to be adapted and that change is driving the push
    to merge GO MHS and COSINE MHS, then things become a bit clearer. 
    Still, there was the issue raised at the meeting that no one had seen
    anything spelling out the details of such a move and it seemed sensible
    that someone should write down the issues involved, etc before an
    informed discussion could start.

> Everybody including SWITCH will save money if someone offers to do the job
> for free, please please, show up.

==> I don't think the issue of cost was the only point. But what other
    points are involved is covered by generating a discussion paper dealing
    with this issue.

> 
> >        o  maybe splitting of the coordination part provided by the project
> >           team into various parts i.e. mapping table coordination, assisting
> >           new services, etc., to reduce the cost makes sense.
> Splitting never reduces overal cost, this is an old management rule.

==> Sorry I didn't make that clear (rush to get the comments out...sigh)
    The point here (raised by Harald as I recall) was that by defining
    what services, provided by the coordination body, are absolutely essential
    for operating the service and what are optional, a smaller amount for 
    using the services of the coordination body might be achieved.

> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Urs.
> 

==>Cheers
   JIm


--