Subject: Re: [Rmt] IETF74 FCAST Action Item

From: "Teco Boot" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 10:01:48 +0200

Sorry for my late response.

On 1: YES
I think there is a merit in the FCAST specification as an RMT WG item.
Rex explained in detail the benefits for military / public safety
communities.
Nowadays, many incompatible implementations are out there and there is some
pressure to make systems compatible and connect our systems.

On 2: NO
Sorry, I haven't the cycles for it. 

Teco.

|From: Brian Adamson <[email-masked]>
|Date: April 16, 2009 11:12:05 AM EDT
|To: [email-masked]
|Cc: Brian Adamson <[email-masked]>
|Subject: IETF74 FCAST Action Item
|
|Hello,
|
|During discussions at the IETF74 RMT meeting, we concluded that 
|we should poll the mailing list to determine if there is sufficient 
|interest in adding the new FCAST document and pursuing it as an RMT 
|working group item.  There was some interest expressed during the 
|working group meeting and a number of folks raised their hands 
|indicating they would review the document (i.e. we need broader 
|participation than just the document authors!)
|
|This message requests interested parties to respond on the mailing 
|list to indicate their opinion on this:
|
|1) Do you think there is merit in the FCAST specification as an 
|RMT WG item (or not)?
|
|2) Will you review the document so that we can rapidly finish it if 
|it is accepted as a working group item?
|
|
|Thank you in advance for your responses to this query.
|
|best regards,
|
|
|
|Brian Adamson
[email-masked]