I refer to any past, present or future version of the charter that departs from the assumption that the DNS is the right protocol to address a set of discrete problems that includes the candidate drafts of the original E2MD BoF. As I read the version you point to below, for example, it does suggest that the overlap dialing optimization requirement should be addressed with a DNS-based solution. I think it remains unclear whether a DNS-based proposal is the optimal way to address overlap dialing.
Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.
On 10/23/10 11:00 AM, "Bernie Hoeneisen" <bernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Jon
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, Peterson, Jon wrote:
> I wouldn’t say that the message of the dns-applications draft is “do not charter
> E2MD,” in so far as it does not reject the problem space. It does try to capture
> arguments that had previously only been presented anecdotally, and it moreover
> intends in the future to capture the ongoing discussions we’ve now begun about these
> subjects. I do however maintain that the previous E2MD chater is a collection of
> problems that have different underlying requirements, and that bringing them under a
> common architectural umbrella may obscure their individual problem spaces rather than
> illuminating them. Also, the insistence of the charter on DNS-based solutions, as
> opposed to solutions that might not involve the DNS, seemed unnecessarily confining,
> for send-n and other mechanisms under consideration.
Which E2MD charter do you refer to in this part of your email?
Is it the one we prepared for Maastricht (IETF-78) as publised on:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/e2md/trac/wiki/ProposedCharter
or some older version or even both? May I ask you clarify this.
cheers,
Bernie
--
http://ucom.ch/
Tech Consulting for Internet Standardization
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf