Subject: [PEPPERMINT] RE: PEPPERMINT Digest, Vol 2, Issue 6

From: "Chauhan, Sanjeev" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:34:56 -0500

> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. RE:  Question about charter (Hollenbeck, Scott)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 13:51:57 -0500
> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: RE: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter
> To: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>,	"Cullen 
> Jennings"
> 	<[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Jon Peterson <[email-masked]>
> Message-ID:
> 	
> <[email-masked]
d.vrsn.com>
> 	
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 1:04 PM
> > To: Hollenbeck, Scott; Cullen Jennings; [email-masked]
> > Cc: Jon Peterson
> > Subject: RE: [PEPPERMINT] Question about charter
> 
> > Such an approach would mean that for each problem that we 
> identified 
> > in the IETF we would start two working groups. One would be 
> focused on 
> > solving the problem itself, and the second on provisioning the 
> > entities related to the solution of the problem. But what 
> about alarms 
> > and notifications related to the respective problem space? And what 
> > about performance monitoring? A third and a fourth WG?
> 
> The appropriate splits don't necessarily fit a formula.  
> That's why we have discussions like this.
> 
> I don't see a problem with creating new working groups if 
> they are properly focused on a specific, manageable problem 
> and they have a well defined timetable for either solving the 
> problem or going home.  I will agree, though, that we haven't 
> done that very well.  On the other hand, we have experience 
> with working groups that have lived far beyond their expected 
> lifespan as they've refocused, rechartered, and sometimes 
> floundered because no one wanted to put them out of their misery.
> That's not necessarily a good thing.
> 
> -Scott-
> 
> 

imho - provisioning and session routing (or resolution in dns terms) are
major interfaces to the system and need to defined. the two interfaces
though related have different requirements and are addressing different
needs and audiences. imo separate WG will be allow individual teams to
focus on the task at hand. 

on a related note - while i agree database synchronization is an
interesting challenge, i don't think this problem is related to the
provisioning issue - defining the provisioning interface imho is a
higher priority for this group. 
-sanjeev

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