What is missing that would require a new AREA. The security area is not appropriate? If 'area' actually meant working group, I wonder to what degrre the problem of 'digital evidence' is already treated in the LTANS working group. Eric Burger wrote:
The idea that time services are important and of interest sounds reasonable to me. Given there has been no discussion on the list, I would offer you write an informational draft referencing the various protocols that could benefit from such consolidation. That may generate interest, or, upon fully understanding the concept, may generate enough explanation of why it is not a good idea. Either way, I would like to see some discussion, post the availability of a thought-out roadmap.On May 17, 2008, at 1:26 PM, TS Glassey wrote:Now that there are multiple time services WG's its becoming very clear that the driving processes for product IP transit systems which move time is nowcentral to the IETF's operations.It if for that reason that I am suggesting that all of the Time Centric Protocols be lumped together into a new Area specifically focused on DigitalEvidence (DE).The reasons are simple, the DE scope of operations is rapidly becoming key to many existing and emerging network use models, and its one which needs to be managed in cooperation with other WG's and Organizations to insure properadoption of IETF workproducts. Todd Glassey _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf_______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--To verify the signature, see http://edelpki.edelweb.fr/ Cela vous permet de charger le certificat de l'autorité; die Liste mit zurückgerufenen Zertifikaten finden Sie da auch.
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
_______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf