Subject: RE: [midcom] pre-midcom work item

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 08:47:00 -0400

At 07:37 AM 9/22/01 -0700, Reinaldo Penno wrote:
>a few days ago our chair was saying rather emphatically we were not going to work on any MIDCOM protocol. Now we are going to work on a pre-midcom protocol which is highly questionable and might (no matter what some people say) preclude the development of MIDCOM altogether. So the solution might be not for carriers now, then after the first release we make some adjustments here and there and carry on...and bye bye midcom.

I think that's a bit of an overstatement.  We cannot do midcom
protocol development at this time because we really do not have
agreement about fundamental issues related to topology, etc.  
We're trying to get those questions resolved.

In the meantime what's being proposed for midcom is NOT protocol
development (the protocol work that's been proposed is for SIP and 
SDP), but documentation of techniques that will work with modified 
SIP and SDP.  I don't think anybody regards this as sufficient to
address the same problem space in which midcom is working.

Melinda

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom

---

From: Abdallah Rayhan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 14:07:58 -0400 (EDT)

--- Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >a few days ago our chair was saying rather emphatically we were not
> going to work on any MIDCOM protocol. Now we are going to work on a
> pre-midcom protocol which is highly questionable and might (no matter
> what some people say) preclude the development of MIDCOM altogether.
> So the solution might be not for carriers now, then after the first
> release we make some adjustments here and there and carry on...and
> bye bye midcom.
> 

This is what I find hard to understand. When we were discussing
the charter of this WG, there was an agreement to leave the
protocol discussion out of it for the time being till we 
are sure where we are heading to. Now instead if amending
the charter to develop the protocol, it is being argued to
amend the charter for a pre-midcom protocol. 

Are we going backward in our development and/or letting biz 
practices dictate our deliverables and divert our effort
to something that is supposed to be interim, yet create
more controversial.

regards
Abdallah

_______________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 14:16:50 -0400

At 02:07 PM 9/24/01 -0400, Abdallah Rayhan wrote:
>Now instead if amending

Again, the proposed addition is NOT to do protocol development.

Melinda