[EAI] Call for interop proposals (fwd)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[EAI] Call for interop proposals (fwd)
this was mentioned in the Vancouver meeting as something EAI might want to
participate in.
It may be too early still; while interoperability results are traditionally
"we don't talk about other people's problems", I don't think it is
realistic to keep secret who participates in such an event.
Harald
------------ Forwarded Message ------------
Date: 9. januar 2008 17:13 -0800
From: Lisa Dusseault <ldusseault at commerce.net>
To: Apps Discuss <discuss at apps.ietf.org>
Cc: Lisa Dusseault's Chairs <lisa-dusseault-chairs at tools.ietf.org>,
chris-newman-chairs at tools.ietf.org
Subject: Call for interop proposals
At the Apps area open meeting in Vancouver, Chris & I mentioned the
possibility of doing a day of interoperability events at the next IETF
meeting. This would replace a day of Apps area meetings during the normal
meeting hours and in the normal meeting location. Ideally it would allow
people to come to the IETF for more than just "their" meeting (although we
have always hoped they can attend other WG meetings as well) and
participants may get more benefit and better justification for attending.
If we're going to do this, we need proposals: what topic ( IDs, RFCs,
suites or functionality) will be tested. I don't think interops will need
a lot of management but volunteer coordinators would be ideal. Proposals
will need to be followed quickly by some indications of who will
participate. WG scheduling is already open and we need to tell the
Secretariat immediately if they need to reserve a day for interops.
Proposals should probably be posted on some relevant subject mailing list
to quickly generate discussion among potential participants -- not
everybody reads Apps Discuss.
Thanks,
Lisa
---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
_______________________________________________
IMA mailing list
IMA at ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.