Re: [vwrap] Status and future of the VWRAP working group

[Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>]

Um. Morgaine. You don't get to define the wg's expectation or direction. As
a member of this wg (and someone who's actually written code related to it's
problem domain) I would like to be included in the development of this
group's consensus.

On Mar 28, 2011 8:29 AM, "Morgaine" <[e-mail]> wrote:

Barry, is there IETF precedent for a WG that has undergone this particular
train of events, namely a major disconnect between its originators'
intentions and the WG's expectations of direction?

If so, our situation may be slightly easier to handle, since the originators
have withdrawn from pressing their case and there appears to be almost no
actual dispute remaining in the group.  Procedurally though, I really don't
know where we stand from the IETF's perspective.  We seem to have a common
goal now, but if the IETF demands paperwork, we're not there yet because the
designs and plans have not been worked out.  I'm hoping for flexibility, but
acknowledge that flexibility has a limit.

That said, reading the IETF Mission Statement leaves no doubt that VW
interoperability is right in the middle of the road for the IETF.  Can the
group be left to work out what needs to be worked out?


Morgaine.




=================================



On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>
wrote:
>
> Hi, Carlo, Vaugh...

_______________________________________________
vwrap mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap