Yves T'Joens wrote:
> You are correct in your statement that the policy group hosts a lot of
> knowledgeable people on data modeling today, however, i do not agree
> that any effort in protocol independent modeling of information should
> automatically be dropped in the policy framework group.
> That decision is not up to us however, and i would appreciate any other
> views on this issue.
I second your opinion. Throwing everything remotely policy-related
into the policy group would just overload that group and quite
effectively eliminate progress.
So, as long as we can define a reasonably narrow set of goals and
issues for a new WG, I think this (i.e. trying to create a new WG)
is the way to go.
You've already presented the SLS draft to the group at the last IETF,
so they know what's cooking. Since there is undeniably some overlap
at least in methodology, it may be a good idea to make sure the BOF
and - if a new WG is created - the WG meetings don't overlap with the
policy group, so people can share their expertise. But I suppose
that's something you've already planned to do anyway ...
- Werner
-- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, ICA, EPFL, CH Werner.Almesberger@epfl.ch / /_IN_N_032__Tel_+41_21_693_6621__Fax_+41_21_693_6610_____________________/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Nov 05 2000 - 01:25:09 CET