Re: [Speermint] shutting down and the arch doc

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

Hi Jan,

I will review it!

Yiu


On 6/8/10 4:06 AM, "Jan Seedorf" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>> Behalf
>> Of Lee, Yiu
>> Sent: Donnerstag, 3. Juni 2010 19:42
>> To: Mike Hammer (hmmr); Daryl Malas; Peterson, Jon; [e-mail]
>> 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)" <[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, 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint
>> 
>