Re: [Speermint] shutting down and the arch doc

Dear Yiu,

> +1. Let's me know if I can help in any way.

Feedback and comments for

- SPEERMINT Security Threats and Suggested Countermeasures
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-speermint-voipthreats-02)

are very much appreciated.

Thanks,

 - Jan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: speermint-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:speermint-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Lee, Yiu
> Sent: Donnerstag, 3. Juni 2010 19:42
> To: Mike Hammer (hmmr); Daryl Malas; Peterson, Jon; speermint@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Speermint] shutting down and the arch doc
> 
> +1. Let's me know if I can help in any way.
> 
> 
> On 6/3/10 1:32 PM, "Mike Hammer (hmmr)" <hmmr@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 	Agree with that approach.
> 
> 	Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 	From: speermint-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:speermint-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Daryl Malas
> 	Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 12:54 PM
> 	To: Peterson, Jon; speermint@ietf.org
> 	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" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz> wrote:
> 
> 	While all IETF working groups look forward to the day they can close
> their doors, I'm not sure I'd 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
> "global" 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 don't 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 you'd imagine, I don't 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 doesn't 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, I'd be happy to
> assist that effort in any capacity.
> 
> 	Jon Peterson
> 	NeuStar, Inc.
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	Speermint mailing list
> 	Speermint@ietf.org
> 	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint
> 