RE: Please read - proposed WG termination

Three comments from the peanut gallery:

- Standardization of purely Infiniband functions shouldn't happen in the 
IETF.
I have no particular opinion on whether failover for IPoIB is a purely 
Infiniband function.

- Closing the WG doesn't prevent people from pushing the MIBs and CM draft 
through the IETF process - they just have to be finished, and then the 
author can ask for publication as a Proposed standard as an individual 
contribution.

- Like most other endeavors, an IETF WG grinds to a halt when there are no 
people actively participating who care. Being an open organization with no 
formal membership also means that people very informally leave....

                       Harald

--On 29. august 2005 19:48 -0700 Carl Hensler <[email protected]> 
wrote:

> The IETF process is so unwieldy that I think we should just let
> the WG terminate.  I think further IB standardization should take
> place in IBTA or OpenIB, where people actually care about IB.

_______________________________________________
IPoverIB mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipoverib

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFDE/NQOMj+2+WY0F4RAhAMAKDGTyTxpeh0RfglTkj91s/JUNpbAwCfflKn
rGtUIQK4tSY6mGCUbMem6z0=
=Fcoj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----