Subject: Re: [SWMP] My understanding so far

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:31:56 -0400

Jay:

I am interested in knowing what you agree with and what you don't agree 
with, but I don't feel a need to start a charter.

The more work we do to achieve consensus before starting a working group, 
the better.  Once we are at the working group phase everything will become 
more formal and feel more critical.  There are only a few of us in the 
conversation right now and it seems sensible to find the common ground 
before getting more formal.  Who knows, we might all be seeing this in 
radically different ways.  Before committing to a working group, I would 
prefer to know that a core of other committed people are consistently 
returning to the same set of objectives and design concerns.

jfp

****
Hi John, sorry for the late reply, I've been "swamped" with corporate 
stuff.

john_patterson at us.ibm.com wrote: 
I have proposed some changes to the swmp specification and there has not 
been much resistance.  I thought it might help to rearticulate the swmp 
message set with my changes.
Very thoughtful analysis and detailed proposals, and I, for one, agree 
with most of it.  Your clear explication of assumptions is fantastic. I'll 
add thoughts regarding details but first I want to make sure everybody 
understands the context of this list.

This is an "interest" list for disucssion about the topic of a "simple 
wide-area multiuser-3D protocol", being a first step towards a Working 
Group and then the rfc process.  But just being at the interest-discussion 
stage, we don't yet have a process for submission of changes, approval of 
changes, or publishing of changes.  Indeed we don't really have a 
specification to change except for the strawman work I submitted, in the 
hopes that people find it useful as a starting point.

Thus your analysis is most welcome, but to take it to the next step we 
need to draft a charter, nominate and choose working group chairs.  Are 
people anxious to go to the working group stage?  If so, lets pop up a 
level and discuss the charter.

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

---

From: "Tony Parisi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:39:07 -0700

I think I agree with that sentiment. Having a working group will raise the
stakes. It's a bit early for that. Let's keep this more casual for the next
little while, generally explore the issues at a next level of detail.

We'll try to get you some feedback shortly. As Jay pointed out we are a bit
snowed under at the moment.

Thanks

Tony

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 11:32 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [SWMP] My understanding so far

Jay: 

jfp 

**** 

Hi John, sorry for the late reply, I've been "swamped" with corporate stuff.

john_patterson <mailto:john_patterson%20at%20us.ibm.com>  at us.ibm.com
wrote: 
I have proposed some changes to the swmp specification and there has not
been much resistance.  I thought it might help to rearticulate the swmp
message set with my changes. 
Very thoughtful analysis and detailed proposals, and I, for one, agree with
most of it.  Your clear explication of assumptions is fantastic. I'll add
thoughts regarding details but first I want to make sure everybody
understands the context of this list.

This is an "interest" list for disucssion about the topic of a "simple
wide-area multiuser-3D protocol", being a first step towards a Working Group
and then the rfc process.  But just being at the interest-discussion stage,
we don't yet have a process for submission of changes, approval of changes,
or publishing of changes.  Indeed we don't really have a specification to
change except for the strawman work I submitted, in the hopes that people
find it useful as a starting point.

Thus your analysis is most welcome, but to take it to the next step we need
to draft a charter, nominate and choose working group chairs.  Are people
anxious to go to the working group stage?  If so, lets pop up a level and
discuss the charter.

jay