Subject: [BEEPwg] Working group shutdown

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:00:50 -0600

There's really been no progress on work items in this working group 
anymore, yet here it sits on my plate. :-) Is there any reason not to 
shut down the working group now? The mailing list will, of course, 
still be active, but I think we can get this out of the IETF's lap. 
Any objections? Anything going on with SCTP that we need to deal with 
as a working group?

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <mailto:[email-masked]>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
BEEPwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.beepcore.org/mailman/listinfo/beepwg

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 15:37:53 -0800 (PST)

> Any objections? Anything going on with SCTP that we need to deal with

Pete, I agree with this assessment and intended to send you a note about
it. Unless there's some chance of the BEEP over SCTP document being
resurrected almost immediately I'd much prefer to shut down the WG and
do any SCTP binding work as an individual submission.

				Ned

---

From: Phillip Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 19:04:15 -0500

At 05:00 PM 3/13/2002 -0600, Pete Resnick wrote:
>anymore, yet here it sits on my plate. :-) Is there any reason not to shut 
>down the working group now? The mailing list will, of course, still be 
>active, but I think we can get this out of the IETF's lap. Any objections? 
>Anything going on with SCTP that we need to deal with as a working group?

Pete, w.r.t to the BEEP WG shutdown, and items related to SCTP....

You and I had a "corridor conversation" about this at the London IETF... 
there's not much new to say here; my purpose in writing is just to make our 
conversation "public" in case anyone else wants to chime in before the 
final bell tolls for the BEEP WG...

As I told you then, I'm still making forward progress (albeit at a low 
priority) on an implementation of the BEEP over SCTP mapping as per 
draft-mrose-beep-sctpmapping-01.txt, which expired on January 18 2002.

I haven't had a chance to talk with Marshall yet (the sole co-author), but 
I believe the demise of per-stream flow control in SCTP will necessitate a 
revision of this draft.  (Per stream flow control was removed in subsequent 
revisions of draft-ietf-tsvwg-addip-sctp-02.txt, which the current draft 
depends on).  We'll need to add functionality to this mapping similar to 
that in the TCP mapping, which should be straightforward.

On the other hand, this draft never "officially" became a working group 
item.   If this is the only remaining open item, it may not be worth 
delaying the shutdown of the working group.    The mapping can still be 
discussed on the mailing list, and if and when there is a final draft and 
interoperable implementations that there is a real need to standardize, I 
suppose it is "theoretically possible" to proceed from individual 
submission direct to RFC without going through an active working group 
(though I'm told this is a bit more difficult to accomplish).

So, I won't raise an objection to WG shutdown unless Marshall or someone 
else feels its worth keeping the group open for this.

Cheers,
Phill Conrad

******************************
Phillip T. Conrad,  Asst. Professor, CIS Dept, Temple University
[email-masked]     http://www.cis.temple.edu/~conrad 
http://netlab.cis.temple.edu
--