RE: IPS Draft Charter update

["Howard Hall" <hhall@ultranet.com>]

Dave,

Discovery may be ancillary, but it I believe it will be critical to the
acceptance of the protocol.  Is there a way to keep discovery in the charter
without it becoming a bottle neck for a first protocol version?  Is this
what you are planning on doing? I am hesitant to support the removal of it
all together given its importance.

-Howard

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of
Black_David@emc.com
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 3:00 PM
To: julian_satran@il.ibm.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: IPS Draft Charter update


> I am however concerned that if we include all the work items - including
> discovery - in the first version we might either miss our schedule or have
> a half baked solution.
>
> Can we exclude those from the first version and add them (either as a
> separate/complementary spec) in the MIB timeframe?

Sure - discovery sounds "ancillary" to me.  In any case I've been
concerned that the milestones were aggressive to the point of unrealistic,
and given this feedback, I'll stretch them out and try to make the next
charter version more explicit about what has to be done to get the first
protocol version out - that does include security.

Thanks,
--David

---------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 435-1000 x75140, FAX: +1 (508) 497-6909
black_david@emc.com  Cellular: +1 (978) 394-7754
---------------------------------------------------