On 6/23/08 8:48 AM, "Hannes Tschofenig" <Hannes.Tschofenig@xxxxxxx> wrote: > The description is too short to judge your proposal in a reasonable way. > I would have todo a lot of guessing. > Additionally, I have doubts that there is a need for a new protocol > given that we are not short on solutions. I think one question we should be asking ourselves is why we get so many proposals to solve this problem[*] even with so much work already underway or completed. > So, why are you doing this at all? Nothing else todo for the next 5 years? This, I thought, was unnecessary. Melinda [*] I'm actually not all that clear on what problem Chad is trying to solve - he needs to do a better job of explaining what it is he's trying to do. Describing the technology itself is necessary but not even close to sufficient. _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf