> Walter> On the other hand, it will be hard to place dependencies on
> Walter> other working groups when the outcome is still in
> Walter> question. Hence, I see little value in advocating a model for
> Walter> using the results of this activity (to the IETF at large)
> Walter> until after this activity is formalized and the outcome of the
> Walter> work is a little clearer.
> Which really sounds as if this activity belongs into the IRTF rather
> than the IETF. I know an IRTF group which is already working on ideas
> closely related to NIM... ;-)
I certainly don't have any problem with leveraging existing IRTF work. If you are willing, a presentation of the status of this work would be invaluable in determining not only how to proceed, but also where to continue the work. From my personal perspective, the current situation makes me want to encourage the involvement of the larger IETF community not only to draw more attention to the work but also to drive some immediate deliverables.