Subject: [midcom] How much leeway does this WG have?

From: Scott Michel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:45:53 -0800

I've yet to read the charter, so this is going to be a completely
clueless question, but I'm willing to take some heat for it.

How much leeway does the WG have in proposing architectures? Clearly,
as WREC and FOGHAT pointed out, there's a lot of intermediate 
infrastructure out there that add value. However, it does strike me
that we're moving in the direction of building application-level
networks. Which, it turns out, happens to be my PhD research topic.

Would it be completely inappropriate for me to write an I-D that
describes a generalized application-level router/forwarder architecture?
Such an architecture doesn't really exist and while this WG is clearly
a distraction from getting my research work done to proove the concept,
the I-D may nonetheless be somewhat useful.

-scooter
-- 
Scott Michel                          |   No research ideal ever survives 
UCLA Computer Science                 |   contact with implementation.
PhD Graduate Student                  | !!  Futuaris nisi irrisus ridebis  !!

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom

---

From: Jiri Kuthan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:23:18 +0100

Scott Michel wrote:
[...]
> the I-D may nonetheless be somewhat useful.

I personally consider application in network a suboptimal idea. I accept
as a matter of fact that ALGs are present in firewalls/NATs and would
like to make the ALGs somewhat easier to live with by decomposition.
I would not advocate adding even more application into network. 

As for this WG I think we should keep focused on the urgent problems
and not extend the scope.

Jiri

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:38:33 -0500

> the I-D may nonetheless be somewhat useful.

Right now IMHO it would be much more appropriate to address the basic
requirements we're trying to meet.  After that you could demonstrate
how your architecture meets those requirements and also satisfies other
potential needs without causing its performance of midcom functions to
deteriorate too much.

...Scott

---

From: "Melinda Shore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:13:10 -0500

> networks. Which, it turns out, happens to be my PhD research topic.

It's probably (!!) a good idea to read the charter.

We're not going to be modifying our scope or deliverables
absent some really (and I mean *really*) compelling
reason to do so, and frankly I just don't see that 
happening.  That said, one of the things we're doing
is proposing an architecture.  The immediate focus of
that architectural work is firewalls and NATs.  Anything 
that moves the work forward is quite very extremely welcome, 
whether it's contributed in the form of mailing list 
discussion, meeting participation, or writing an individual 
draft.

Melinda