Eliot: Dave asked for opinions on usefulness to lead another BoF. Imho there is a pending question that deserves discussion and a BoF is one of the suitable mean to have such discussion and hopefully reach consensus.
Your answer seems to state that the activities needed to address the known Loc/ID split challenges would be lead outside LISP WG anyway ... but this does not answer the initial question. Thanks, -d. > -----Original Message----- > From: Eliot Lear [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 2:56 PM > To: PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri > Cc: David Meyer; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Please respond: Questions from the > IESG as to whether aWG forming BOF is necessary for LISP > > On 1/21/09 2:12 PM, PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri wrote: > > All items in the charter - see below - are exclusively > oriented toward > > LISP protocols implementation specifics, and interworking: > > > Right. This is a LISP WG. There is nothing stopping anyone from > creating another WG, assuming the work warrants it. And again, the > output is experimental docs. No standardization choices are > being made. > > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
