At 4:32 PM -0400 8/23/01, Allison Mankin wrote:
>We were nearly out of time for the meeting. Dan Rothman raised the
>last topic to be discussed. He returned to the scope of the work to be
>performed by geopriv. He said that the outputs must be defined in
>order to determine whether peers can interoperably exchange data
>objects in a geopriv session. Further, IETF rules require there be
>multiple implementations of peers. Ned, agreeing, noted there are
>various ways to achieve this. For example, the WG could define several
>applications that transport geopriv protocol elements. The WG may also
>define a single protocol that has multiple independent
>implementations. [Allison's query: is this last note just about
>multiple implementations or something else that needs expanding.]
If I understand your question, I interpreted Ned's remark to refer
only to multiple implementations of a protocol. Developing such a
protocol is definitely within the scope of our charter.
-- john noerenberg jwn2@qualcomm.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peace of mind isn't at all superficial, really. It's the whole thing. That which produces it is good maintenance; that which disturbs it is poor maintenance. -- Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert M. Pirsig, 1974 --------------------------------------------------------------------------Received on Thu Aug 23 17:46:35 2001
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 22 2004 - 12:32:22 EST