Subject: [midcom] Summary of Volunteers for Protocol Evaluation Documents & one las t plea for additional volunteers

From: "Mary Barnes"<[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 09:12:32 -0600

Well, the volunteers for protocols remain as follows:

MEGACO - Sanjoy Sen [[email-masked]]
COPS - Louis-Nicolas Hamer [[email-masked]] 
RSIP - James Renkel [[email-masked]]
SNMP/SMI - Juergen Quittek [[email-masked]]

There was a single response to my proposal to include some of the others.
Pete provided a brief description of why SOCKS wouldn't be suitable.
Unfortunately, without more support or "volunteers" the task of including
this sort of information in the document isn't practical. 

Subsequent list discussion does show that there is a level of interest in
these others, particularly DIAMETER.  So, I'd like to do one last plea for
volunteers for some of these others. The deadline for the intial submission
is April 19th, thus I think it's still reasonable for folks to step forward
and still take these on. These don't have to be extremely long documents but
MUST cover the items highlighted in section 4.1 of the template at:
http://www.obsidian97.com/draft-midcom-protocol-eval-template.txt . 

As a reminder, the timeline for these contributions is:

April 19th	Final cutoff for specific protocol drafts.
            *  Drafts must be as objective as possible, identify the
               applicability to the framework and clearly identify the 
               requirements that are satisfied, those that
               are "partially" satisfied, and those that are NOT satisfied.

April 19th- May 3rd	Mailing list discussion of specific protocol 
                        drafts, allowing authors to incorporate WG feedback
                        into their contribution to improve comparison and 
                        add completeness. 

May 10th	Deadline for any updates to protocol drafts. 

So, are there any additional volunteers?  If I don't hear anything by 5PM
EST today, we'll go forward with the 4 above listed protocols for the
content of the document.

Mary. 
Editor, MIDCOM Protocol Evalation Document

-----Original Message-----
From: Barnes, Mary [NGC:B601:EXCH] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 10:32 AM
To: 'Melinda Shore'; Pete Cordell; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [midcom] Protocol evaluation contribution reminder

With my editor's hat on... 
There seems to be general WG interest in visiting a larger number of
protocols.  At this point, I've not taken any of these queries as
"volunteering" to do these evaluations of these other protocols.

With my editor's hat off... 
I think it's a really good idea to do a minimal evaluation of several of the
protocols that have been put forth over the past couple days (DIAMETER,
SOCKS, RSVP, etc.).  I do realize that some of these have already been
previously considered and already discarded, but from a completeness
perspective, it would be really useful to capture why they were discarded or
considered inappropriate.  I have a feeling that the reason why people that
have suggested these haven't volunteered has more to do with that limitation
of only 24 hours in a given day versus lack of interest.  

With my editor's hat back on... 
I would suggest we add an additional section to the Protocol Evaluation
document template to cover these other protocols.  What this would require
from the WG would be some discussion on the list to compile this information
or "volunteers" (that word again) to provide minimal content for the
protocol evaluation document for these other protocols (i.e. just a brief
overview and summary of Pros/cons (per the requirements) and perhaps a
recommendation as to why this wouldn't be appropriate as the MIDCOM
protocol).  Now, I can see problems with doing this as it's possible one of
these others might actually be better and we've not necessarily evaluated
these as thoroughly as the others (although, Melinda seems to be indicating
that a certain level of analysis had been previously done in an informal
manner on some of these others). 

So, what do people think about this proposal? 

Mary.  
-----Original Message----- 
From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 9:13 AM 
To: Pete Cordell; [email-masked] 
Subject: Re: [midcom] Protocol evaluation contribution reminder 

At 01:01 PM 4/3/02 +0100, Pete Cordell wrote: 
>SOCKS would seem to be a candidate also.  Or do people already know that it

>is not useful? 
SOCKS would require significant extension, and I think that 
its basic model is actually covered in a more general way by 
RSIP.  It's a reasonable protocol to investigate, though. 
Melinda 

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