Dan Wing (dwing@cisco.com)
Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:58:40 -0800
ID-ACTIONs on UMI have long thought (c) would be best. I think the
application area directors would also prefer (c), as it reduces the number
of working groups.
-d
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-fax@mail.imc.org]On
Behalf Of Glenn Parsons
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 8:34 AM
To: ietf-fax@imc.org
Cc: IETF VPIM List; um@snowshore.com
Subject: ID-ACTIONs on UM
Folks,
These drafts discuss some general unified messaging (UM) client issues
that I think would be worth discussing at both the FAX and VPIM WGs.
After some discussion, I suggest we need to decide between the following:
a) create a new BOF/WG to work on UM
b) recharter VPIM and/or FAX to work on this
c) close and combine VPIM and FAX into a new UM WG to work on this and
remaining VPIM/FAX topics
Cheers,
Glenn Parsons
VPIM WG Chair
<<[VPIM] I-D ACTION:draft-vaudreuil-um-issues-00.txt>> <<[VPIM] I-D
ACTION:draft-burger-um-reqts-00.txt>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Feb 28 2002 - 22:59:22 IST