Subject: [vwrap] Moving ahead with draft-ietf-vwrap-intro

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:05:54 -0400

Since there's been no discussion, yet, about "Introduction and Goals"
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-vwrap-intro
...we should consider moving ahead with it.  To that end:

1. Meadhbh, is there anything outstanding that you think needs to be
addressed?  Any specific input you need from the working group?

2. David, can you get the IPR statement on Meadhbh's original version
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1294/
...updated, if it's still applicable to the WG version?  If it's not
still applicable, we'd need you to tell us that.

3. Working group: please review the document and discuss any issues
with it.  Joshua and I will also appreciate comments saying "I've
reviewed it, and it's ready to go."

Barry, as chair

---

From: Meadhbh Hamrick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:13:32 -0700

i don't think there are any outstanding issues with the intro draft.

--
meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
@OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [email-masked]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Barry Leiba
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>

---

From: Morgaine <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:45:10 +0100

Barry, I've been reviewing the Intro document for several days now, and
there are important issues there that will need a certain amount of change.
I don't expect it to be very contentious (basically the old OGP worldview
needs to be brought into line with what's already been discussed in the
group), but I will need some more days of work on it next week.

Hopefully it won't take me too long.

Morgaine.

====================================

---

From: Meadhbh Hamrick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:05:39 -0700

morgaine! you're frightening me!

i think we should definitely support the tourist model, but please
don't try to take out the bits that support fixed / locked down grids.
there are many of us who will be implementing this style of VW.

-cheers
-meadhbh

---

From: Meadhbh Hamrick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:06:36 -0700

in other words... let's not start a fight over whether your model is
supported or not. if you write up some words that support the tourist
model, but don't make the fixed grid impossible, i'm all for it.

-cheers
-meadhbh

---

From: Morgaine <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:07:43 +0100

I'm a firm supporter of David's position on multiple deployment models, a
wide range of which should be possible.  Our specifications need to make
that flexibility clear instead of hanging on to old language that has its
roots in the walled garden model with which we started.

I'm also a firm supporter of the IETF's mission statement with regard to
interoperability and scalability, which again places upon us a certain duty
towards those goals in our documents.

I'm trying to improve our protocols and specification on both those fronts.

There is certainly nothing to fear.  Denying interoperation will always be
possible, and trivial to accomplish.  Our task is to allow interoperation
for those who want it.

Morgaine.

===================================

---

From: Meadhbh Hamrick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 01:09:33 -0700

kk. ossm.