RE: Consideration of iFCP as WG item -- stepping aside during process.

[Douglas Otis <dotis@sanlight.net>]

Elizabeth,

If the group wishes to influence proposals in their creation, then being
less selective initially makes sense.  Perhaps the iFCP group may wish to
consider a concept of IP to target id mapping as separate proposal and
transport encapsulation yet another.  All existing WG proposals will change
substantially as details are completed.  With conflicts of interest within
the various proposals, perhaps a more generous view should prevail to allow
a comparison of the final results to benefit from a clear perspective of
shared and divergent goals.

Doug

> Hello all,
>
> As was mentioned in Tuesday's meeting, we have a motion before us to
> consider iFCP as a WG item.
> There has already been some discussion on the topic, and how it should be
> addressed -- adoption as separate item, common encapsulation, merger, etc.
> As one of the authors on the FCIP document, I hereby am recusing
> myself from
> my role as chair during this decision process.
> By this, I mean that all input/comments on this process will be from a
> general membership role, and as one of the authors of the FCIP document.
> When the other chairs and the ADs act on the input of this
> working group as
> to how iFCP should proceed forth, I will not be taking part in
> that decision
> process.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Elizabeth
>