Looking at the LTANS charter, I would offer the work is already well
underway. Thanks for pointing that out. I would agree, no need for a
new work group, and especially no need for a new directorate.
Sigh - I'm just a poor APPS and RAI guy (hey - that rhymes :-)
On Jun 2, 2008, at 7:46 AM,
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 o
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, u
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 now
central 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 n
