Additions to fepg-interest?

"Phillip G. Gross" <pgross@NRI.Reston.VA.US> Mon, 02 April 1990 14:07 UTC

Received: by devvax.TN.CORNELL.EDU (5.59-1.12/1.3-Cornell-Theory-Center) id AA27293; Mon, 2 Apr 90 10:07:21 EDT
Received: from NRI.RESTON.VA.US by devvax.TN.CORNELL.EDU (5.59-1.12/1.3-Cornell-Theory-Center) id AA27289; Mon, 2 Apr 90 10:07:11 EDT
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 1990 10:03:59 -0400
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (6.5 4/17/89)
From: "Phillip G. Gross" <pgross@NRI.Reston.VA.US>
To: tewg@devvax.TN.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Additions to fepg-interest?
Message-Id: <9004021004.aa20137@NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US>

Hi,

As a result of Dan's message to the TEWG list, I have gotten a couple
requests to be added to the FEPG-INTEREST list.

Unfortunately, a real fepg-interest list does not exist.  The mailing
list for the Federal Engineering Planning Group (FEPG) is a private
list for the agency participants only.  

There is nothing Top Secret or sinister going on.  The FEPG is simply 
a group that deals with the interconnectivity of various agency 
backbones (including international connectivity).  Because some of the 
discussions involve agency-specific requirements (including some funding 
discussions), neither the group nor the mailing list is open.  The FEPG 
was originally formed by the FRICC, and as the FRICC evolves into a more 
formal body, the FEPG will likely continue providing engineering support.

Now having said that, let me point out that the Topology Engineering
Working Group essentially *is* the fepg-interest group!  You may notice
that the TEWG chair, Scott Brim, is also a participant in the FEPG.  This
is not an accident.  

Early-on, we discussed in the FEPG the need for an Internet-wide group 
to discuss some of the same sort of issues that get discussed in a more 
narrow context in the FEPG.  Eventually, Scott volunteered to lead such 
a group.  It is my impression that TEWG has already firmly established 
itself as a useful and important group.  

When we discussed forming the TEWG, we assumed that there would be cross
fertilization between the more narrow FEPG and the TEWG.  We thought
this was an important feature, and therefore, I expect that Scott and
others will continue to act as a liaison between the groups when appropriate.

For those of you who have more questions about the FEPG or the (now
defunct) FRICC, I plan to make a presentation at the PSC IETF plenary
meeting, and then we could follow up with more specific discussion in
the TEWG sessions, as needed.

Thanks for the interest and the participation in this important WG.

Phill