Re: An opes services usage question

Hilarie thanks for your clarification. I'll review midcom more closely 
to check into overlap. I do agree with you and Alex that we should avoid 
any overlaps, or misunderstandings with any WG.  But, I am now a bit 
confused because I thought we were past the point of  the this problem 
being considered an opes problem from the earlier (what I thought to be) 
thorough problem discussions on this e-mail thread.  Am I missing 
something?   ....Also, I don't think that I'd represent my posture as 
"don't care about anything else".  I am investigating how to get this 
problem solved with an open standards solution. I just want to get it 
right and any help you can give me is much appreciated.    :-) 
Regards  John


Alex Rousskov wrote:

>I agree with Hilarie that we should be careful about potential
>overlaps with MIDCOM WG charter. I would suggest that we still start
>with a concise but clear-enough proposal that, among other things,
>defines "flow participant discovery" problem and lists possible
>solution directions. Having such a document at hand, we can do a more
>meaningful evaluation of MIDCOM conflicts.
>
>Alex.
>
>On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman wrote:
>
>  
>
>>If you want to have opes rechartered to include flow participant
>>discovery you may need to explain why it should be part of opes
>>and not part of midcom.  The answer "because I want it work with
>>opes and don't care about anything else" might not be enough to
>>convince the authorities.
>>
>>Hilarie
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>