Subject: RE: [ipcdn] WG-recharter and moving to OPS area

From: "Jean-Francois Mule" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 13:53:54 -0600

We seemed to have addressed the Azlina's comment.

Rich wrote:
> There *are* cable folks that attend other IETF WGs. For 
> example, I participate frequently in the DHC WG, and 
> Jean-Francois participates in the SIP and SIPPING WGs. If I 
> see a need to interact with other WGs, I join their mailing 
> lists and attend their WG sessions during IETF meetings.

To complement my co-chair and to give credits to the many "cable" folks
who contribute to many working groups in IETF, I'll just add more proof
that this is actually happening outside ipcdn:
 - sip & sipping: Flemming Adreasen, Bill Marshall, et al. have
contributed the DCS Internet-Drafts to sip and sipping and with the help
of Allison Mankin, Jon Peterson, the 3gpp folks and the sip guys, this
has contributed to some good work: sip privacy -> sip asserted identity
RFC from Jon, private sip extensions RFC used in the CableLabs
proxy-to-proxy draft, etc. Our CableLabs SIP-based CMSS spec is now
aligned with numerous of the IETF SIP extensions.
 - dhc: Paul Duffy (and earlier on, Burcak Beser) did bring the
CableLabs client configuration DHCP option for consideration in the dhc
wg -> became RFC 3495 and DHCP option 122. Look for the RFC on the
additional sub-option for kerberos ticket removal.
 - sigtran: as part of the CableLabs ISTP spec based on TCP or SCTP
transport, Ken Morneault, Norman Glaude, et al. had brought numerous
ISTP requirements to sigtran & the M3UA authors and according to Ken,
the now RFC 3332 does have what we need to update ISTP.

I'm probably missing some important other work but this is sufficient to
show that we're using all the other IETF avenues we can to get better
engineering work done (and we have running code too ;).

Jean-Francois 

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

---

From: Azlina Ahmad <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 13:14:25 -0700

Oouch ... didn't mean to dis-respect those that
are already been doing a great job representing at
IETF.

As I have mentioned it before, it was meant to
include more interesting activities in IPCDN WG.
But as Bert pointed out, we have not done anything
else beside MIBs review in the past years,
so moving it to OPS area would make sense.

Thanks,
Azlina