RE: Minutes 21-Dec2000 POC Conf-call

[Nicholas Kassem <Nick.Kassem@eng.sun.com>]

At 09:49 AM 12/28/2000 -0600, Bob Haugen wrote:
> 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.


Bob, when do you suppose the POC team can get to review an early draft of 
the relevant spec ? The drop-dead date for the Vancouver POC is 1/15/01 - 
is that what you meant by "real soon" ?

Regards,
Nick