Re: [Speermint] shutting down and the arch doc

["Lee, Yiu" <[e-mail]>]

+1. Let¹s me know if I can help in any way.


On 6/3/10 1:32 PM, "Mike Hammer (hmmr)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Agree with that approach.
>  
> Mike
>  
>  
> 
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Daryl Malas
> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 12:54 PM
> To: Peterson, Jon; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Speermint] shutting down and the arch doc
>  
> Jon et. al,
> 
> I agree we should finish the architecture document.  If members of this
> mailing list and the working group think it requires greater definition around
> certain functions, then please contribute.  I would like to suggest we focus
> on two drafts to wrap up in Maastricht:
> 
> Architecture
> Security
> 
> After completing these two drafts, we shut down the working group by Beijing.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Daryl
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/27/10 12:50 PM, "Peterson, Jon" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> While all IETF working groups look forward to the day they can close their
> doors, I¹m not sure I¹d be happy to see SPEERMINT make its final bow without
> completing the architecture document.
> 
> I believe that in the LUF/LRF distinction, the SPEERMINT group has captured an
> idea that is valuable, and moreover one which, as the original charter of this
> group intended, identifies a reality of deployments that the standards
> community had previously ignored. It explodes the conceit that a one-step
> resolution process, just transforming a telephone number into a ³global² URI,
> will address the needs of the sort of peering communities this group examines.
> While the distinction between LUF and LRF is not a precise one, and has never
> been immensely well understood, I contend that it is valuable nonetheless, and
> that if confusion about the idea prompts us to discard the work in SPEERMINT,
> I have no reason to expect anything different to happen in DRINKS or any other
> group that must operate on these same architectures. I don¹t think the
> sketches in the terminology draft suffice as a foundation for that work.
> 
> Finishing the architecture document is not solving world hunger. While
> everything in the IETF takes much longer than you¹d imagine, I don¹t think
> this has to be one or two years out ­ I think it would be reasonable to make a
> final push to clear up the snags in the document, and just set a deadline by
> which this group will emit it as an Informational. It doesn¹t have to be
> perfect, it just has to be able to serve as the framework for the subsequent
> discussions in DRINKS and other future arenas. I think this is an an
> achievable, and relatively honorable, way to round up the work that the
> SPEERMINT charter originally laid out.
> 
> If there is enough energy here for one last jaunt, I¹d be happy to assist that
> effort in any capacity.
> 
> Jon Peterson
> NeuStar, Inc.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speermint mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint