Re: [tcmtf] Support to create the working group for TCM-TF

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 8/3/2013 1:43 AM, Jose Saldana wrote:
> I agree with Wes. The question of the area was discussed one year ago (see
> slides 24-26 of this presentation at IETF83:
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-tsvwg-0.pdf). There have
> been no objections about this point during the last 16 months. The drafts
> are in tsvwg. The BOF was organized by the Transport Area, and nobody
> objected.

One area "on the table" during the time of a BOF is whether the area is 
appropriate. It shouldn't be considered a "done deal" until it's a WG.

Further, there's clearly a lot of continuing confusion about what this 
work constitutes.

I'm a bit surprised that nobody else spoke up a year ago in Paris; the 
logic in slide 26 is deeply flawed. By that logic, all tunnels are E2E 
and thus all tunnels belong in transport. Regardless, the list is where 
these discussions should happen, and I didn't see any such discussion 
raised here.

Finally, you really ought to look at SEAL.

Joe