RE: [Fwd: interest in the rules language]
"Abbie Barbir" <[email protected]> Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:57:15 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.opes |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <87AC5F88F03E6249AEA68D40BD3E00BE034262A3@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com> |
I am interested in this work. I will start focusing on it once the use case draft is a little bit more mature. abbie > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Markus Hofmann > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 9:03 AM > To: OPES Group > Subject: Re: [Fwd: interest in the rules language] > > > > Alex Rousskov wrote: > > > I did not see anybody digging in. At this point, I have to > wonder if I > > am the only person left interested in the "common rules language" > > problem. Did we lose the momentum and interest on this > topic? Does it > > make sense to continue working on rules (regardless of > Seive versus P > > question)? > > > > There were a few folks interested in the topic when the charter was > > discussed and before various (mostly IETF-imposed) delays > put the topic > > on the backburner. Should we assume that those folks lost > interest (due > > to delays or any other reason)? > > Folks - we need to know if anyone is still interested in this work. > Doesn't make sense to drag this along without anyone working > on it and > without making real progress. > > Could anyone interested in the rules language work please > speak up, in > particular the ones who expressed interest in contributing to > the work > when we re-charted (don't make me go back into the email archives to > dig out the names... :). If we don't hear back, I recommend we fold > this activity. > > Thanks, > Markus > > >