Subject: [apps-discuss] Two VDI(Virtual Desktop Infrastructure) related drafts submitted in appsawg for your comments

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:33:49 +0800

Dear All,

We submitted two drafts to appsawg on this May, but at that time there 
were some 
problems with IETF online submission tools and no auto-generated emails 
were sent 
out. Now I'm sending them out manually. Following is the details:

1st Draft: draft-wang-appsawg-vdi-problem-statement-00.txt 
   This document summarizes the limitations of existing virtual desktop 
systems, 
   and proposes the intent standardization work in IETF.
URL for this draft:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-appsawg-vdi-problem-statement/ 
 
2nd Draft: Survey of Virtual Desktop Infrastructure System
   This document presents a survey of VDI (Virtual Desktop
   Infrastructure) system, including different product arch.
   and VDI protocols.
URL for this draft:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ma-appsawg-vdi-survey/

Welcome your comments!

Thanks,
Liang

--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:59:41 -0400

> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ma-appsawg-vdi-survey/

I want to point out here that, while the authors have given the
documents filenames with "appsawg" in them, these are not appsawg
documents, and they are not under consideration as appsawg documents.
The naming is fine, and it allows you to see them as "related"
documents on the appsawg tools page (
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/ ).  How they will proceed, if
there is consensus to proceed with them, is entirely undecided.

Of course, we do encourage Applications Area participants to review
and comment on the documents, and this list is a fine place to do that
until something changes.

Barry, appsawg chair