RE: Minutes 21-Dec2000 POC Conf-call

[Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com>]

From these items in the minutes, I think the POC group may be
missing some specs that clearly need to be tested ASAP.
See below.

>-  It appeared that the first BP/CC proposal would be more appropriate for
>London.  For one thing, the Specs for BP/CC will be more advance.  For
>another, the scenario covers an industry (Telecom) whose BP has a
>significant support in Europe.

>-  Most participants felt that for Vancouver, we should focus on
>infrastructure issues.  

>-  We are going to take a look at Dale's proposal that was submitted late on
>that day to determine where we want to go.  Most agree that a technically
>oriented POC with focus on security, R/R and CPP is the way to go for
>Vancouver.

In the F2F meetings in Boston Dec 6-8, the BP group arrived at 
significant agreements on what we called an "infrastructure schema",
that is, a reduced-scope early-release schema that could play
nicely with the early-release scope of the CPP.  BP and TP
groups met on this and there was a very rough and shaky 
meeting of the minds with much hand-shaking and details-
to-be-worked-out-laters.

The BP infrastructure schema is being nailed down "real soon now",
but certainly in time for Vancouver POCs.

The Collaboration proposal from Jim Clark, Bill McCarthy and me
was intended to consolidate and test the details of this infrastructure 
schema in conjunction with the CPP etc.  

I do not think there is any other proposal on the table with comparable
scope in terms of testing the infrastructure.  If so, I would happily
consider helping to develop it.

Respectfully,
Bob Haugen