Re: [vwrap] Moving ahead with draft-ietf-vwrap-intro

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

I'm a firm supporter of David's position on multiple deployment models, a
wide range of which should be possible.  Our specifications need to make
that flexibility clear instead of hanging on to old language that has its
roots in the walled garden model with which we started.

I'm also a firm supporter of the IETF's mission statement with regard to
interoperability and scalability, which again places upon us a certain duty
towards those goals in our documents.

I'm trying to improve our protocols and specification on both those fronts.

There is certainly nothing to fear.  Denying interoperation will always be
possible, and trivial to accomplish.  Our task is to allow interoperation
for those who want it.


Morgaine.




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

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:

> in other words... let's not start a fight over whether your model is
> supported or not. if you write up some words that support the tourist
> model, but don't make the fixed grid impossible, i'm all for it.
>
> -cheers
> -meadhbh
> --
> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > morgaine! you're frightening me!
> >
> > i think we should definitely support the tourist model, but please
> > don't try to take out the bits that support fixed / locked down grids.
> > there are many of us who will be implementing this style of VW.
> >
> > -cheers
> > -meadhbh
> > --
> > meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
> > @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Morgaine
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> Barry, I've been reviewing the Intro document for several days now, and
> >> there are important issues there that will need a certain amount of
> change.
> >> I don't expect it to be very contentious (basically the old OGP
> worldview
> >> needs to be brought into line with what's already been discussed in the
> >> group), but I will need some more days of work on it next week.
> >>
> >> Hopefully it won't take me too long.
> >>
> >>
> >> Morgaine.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ====================================
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> i don't think there are any outstanding issues with the intro draft.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
> >>> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Barry Leiba
> >>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>> > Since there's been no discussion, yet, about "Introduction and Goals"
> >>> >   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-vwrap-intro
> >>> > ...we should consider moving ahead with it.  To that end:
> >>> >
> >>> > 1. Meadhbh, is there anything outstanding that you think needs to be
> >>> > addressed?  Any specific input you need from the working group?
> >>> >
> >>> > 2. David, can you get the IPR statement on Meadhbh's original version
> >>> >   https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1294/
> >>> > ...updated, if it's still applicable to the WG version?  If it's not
> >>> > still applicable, we'd need you to tell us that.
> >>> >
> >>> > 3. Working group: please review the document and discuss any issues
> >>> > with it.  Joshua and I will also appreciate comments saying "I've
> >>> > reviewed it, and it's ready to go."
> >>> >
> >>> > Barry, as chair
> >>> > _______________________________________________
> >>> > vwrap mailing list
> >>> > [e-mail]
> >>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
> >>> >
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> vwrap mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> vwrap mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
> >>
> >>
> >
>