RE: draft-ietf-impp-im-01 (was: Re: WG Last Call on multiple docu ments (deadline Jan 12))

>           So, the first requirement is that there be clear, documented
>           consensus about the PRECISE goal of the working group.
>
>           Folks need to appreciate just how remarkable it is that two
>           document authors could be holding such different perceptions of
>           that goal, at this point.
>
>           Mark -- I believe this is yours to resolve.

Um... given that you agree on what belongs in the document, it's not clear
there's anything to resolve. ;-)

I started to compose a meandering ramble through the history of the group as
an answer to this question, but I decided to spare you and just summarize it
as: I always understood Patrik's reorganization of the group as intended to
salvage as much of IMPP's original goals as possible, given the schism in
the WG.

So the gatewaying that would be needed would be among protocols in the "IMPP
family" (however dysfunctional that family might be ;-)) and thus 2778/2779
made sense as shared assumptions and aspirations.  Ease of gatewaying with
existing deployed systems had been discussed and rejected as a goal fairly
early in IMPP's existence, for reasons both technical and political.

My personal experience is that this direction has been maintained fairly
consistently.  Thinking about the way that events have unfolded, I can
certainly understand that there was a time when it could have looked very
different, and I don't mean to disparage anyone's recollection of the
activities of the Group of Nine.  (During that interval, various
circumstances conspired to mean that I was essentially uninvolved in IMPP,
so I am entirely dependent on other peoples' memories -- which are
unfortunately drastically at odds with each other).

So I acknowledge that some people may experience the group goal as having
shifted, but I see it as having basically stayed on its original course as
best it could under the circumstances.

--Mark




  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]