<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7650.5">
<TITLE>RE: [Iccrg] Proposal for ICCRG operations</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>So, the panel isn't for several hours (at PFLDnet 2006) but one thing <BR>
>that has become clear to me so far is that this community has not <BR>
>converged on metrics and scenarios for evaluation. The TMRG work is <BR>
>really needed to make progress.<BR>
<BR>
Lets see what the panel outcome is, but maybe you're a little too pessimistic here. <BR>
<BR>
My impression is that there actually is really quite a good consensus of the broad framework for testing. Tests by ourselves and the north carolina folks have converged to very similar setups and metrics. There is even a common subset of tests that we have both been using and that also seem to have a wider ground-swell of support. Fertile ground for TMRG acitivity.<BR>
<BR>
Doug</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>