Subject: IDXP and IAP

From: Mike Erlinger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 08:27:41 -0700

IDWG Members

At the 50th IETF, presentations were made on IAP, IDXP, a comparison
of IAP and IDXP, and TUNNEL (a BEEP profile used along with IDXP)"
The direction of the IDWG with regards to the future of
these protocols was then discussed. A consensus reached at the meeting
was:

IDXP should become the IDWG message transfer protocol.  This would mean
    that IDXP would be forwarded as a Proposed Standard RFC as soon as
    the IDWG is satisfied with the IDXP specification.

IAP should NOT be forwarded as an RFC of any kind.
    Issues raised in the discussion concerned whether IAP should be
    forward as an Informational RFC.  The consensus reached was that
    such an action would only confuse the issue. IAP can remain as a
    Internet Draft for 6 months so there is no hurry to standardize IAP.

Since many members of IDWG were NOT at the 50th IETF, it was agreed that
the chairs would take the consensus motions to the IDWG mailing list.
Thus, this mail message will be followed by 2 separate, but related messages
dealing with consensus on various aspects of the IDWG transport protocol.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TUNNEL Profile
    The attendees did NOT discuss the status of the TUNNEL Profile proposed
    by Darren New. Since the TUNNEL Profile is needed for IDXP to fulfill
    all the IDWG requirements, it can be assumed that the TUNNEL Profile
    should enter the RFC standards track at the same time as IDXP.

mike

-- 
mike erlinger, professor computer science
www:      http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~mike
email:    [email-masked]
smail:    computer science dept harvey mudd college,
          301 E. 12th Street, Claremont, CA, 91711 
909-621-8912,   FAX: 909-621-8465