Re: FW: Potential Location Summit

> >This assumes that the meeting has some technical content, and that these
> >other organizations are attempting to accomplish something the IETF can
> >use, when and if their attempts conclude.
>
> I agree, Eric. But I don't like to presume other organizations have
> no technical contributions to offer.

If the organization produces a text we can reference (free, unencumbered,
etc.), _and_ either the referant is network-independent, or might have an
api (ldap, ipv6, gss-api, ...), or has an ipv{4,6} wire-format, or uses
an IANA registered thingee, then great. It could be rocket science, but
if it never leaves cell-u-land or crosses the WAP-boundary, it may be good,
but it is hard to see how we can use it. The AMS can tell us all about the
ways to tile a 3-sphere, but we have to map some tile(s) to network topology.

> >If not, then its just noise, and trips down policy-before-mechanism-lane
> >are the forte of other organizations.
>
> If that is the case they will be hoisted by their own petard. I'm
> reasonably confident that IETF'ers will be able to discern the
> difference between what is useful and what is not.

Up until very recently, it was a trivial exercise to get half, or more,
of the current or recent IESG to say that security considerations (now
manditory for several years) properly contained "privacy" (definition
optional). Start with Harald in the IM mess last year and work down the
food-chain.

I'm a little more skeptical this year than I was in prior years.

Did anyone take notes at last week's interim?

Eric
Received on Sun Jun 9 16:55:26 2002