Re: [Autoconf] Agenda (was: Procedure)

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Ryuji Wakikawa a écrit :
> Hi Alex,
> 
> On 2009/10/28, at 6:14, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> 
>> Thomas Heide Clausen a écrit :
>>> On Wed, October 28, 2009 5:52 am, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>>> Thomas Heide Clausen a écrit :
>>>>> Carlos,
>>>>> Ok, let's try this, then, to see how much of a hurry we're really
>>>>> in:
>>>>> o Jari, can we have our milestone moved another 5 years into the
>>>>> future?
>>>> Thomas - can we have agenda requests for the meeting in advance?
>>>> Or are you going to decide only the DT document gets presented -
>>>> despite the discussion on the draft-bernardos?
>>> The working-group is on a tight schedule, and we have specific work
>>> to do. I therefore would suggest that we do not open up for any odd
>>> presentation -- we won't have time for that.
>>> However...
>>> There have been, as I count it, three documents discussed on the list
>>> recently: the Baccelli/Townsley address model document, the 
>>> Perkins/Baccelli "link model" document and the Carlos/Ronald address
>>> model document.
>>> The two latter have emerged in the discussions only recently, but
>>> appear to be useful for the WG to have presented.
>>> My *personal* suggestion would be to ask the authors of each of these
>>> three documents to present, and if they're willing to do so of
>>> course have those on the agenda.
>>
>> Thomas I agree with your personal suggestion - make now a request for 
>> agenda items.
>>
>> Your draft agenda is due this midnight - are you ready for it?  Are you
>> going to act under pressure - again?
>>
>> And please publish here the draft agenda tomorrow, thank you.
> 
> We've published the draft agenda.
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09nov/agenda/autoconf.txt

Thanks!

Do you know whether there's anybody else who would wish to present 
topics around the practical addressing model?

> The agenda is still tentative one,because we want to take further 
> action/decision after we collect all the WG opinions (due is tomorrow).

Yes, this night 24pm GMT - is a "draft agenda" deadline of IETF:
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates.html#76

> There is another deadline (11/2) for the final WG agenda.  We will 
> deliver you the final one before that date.

Yes, please announce the final agenda to the group thank you.

Alex

> 
>>> As for slides in advance, we always try to get them on-line before
>>> the WG sessions, but as there often is a lot of work ongoing and
>>> discussions happening between WG participants during the IETF week
>>> that is being reflected in the presentations, I'm not sure we can
>>> reasonably do much earlier than that.
>>
>> I agree mostly.  Some groups manage to get the slides well in advance.
>> Why not AUTOCONF?
>>
>> It is useful for people wondering whether attending or not, be it
>> locally or remotely.
> 
> Agree, it is useful to have slides at the right time.
> However, AUTOCONF is currently running the adaption call. The chairs 
> wait for all the WG opinions.
> 
> As soon as we will fix the agenda, we will solicit the slides to the 
> presenters.
> You can ask presenters to upload the slide on time with certain pressure;-)
> 
> cheers,
> ryuji
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>> Thomas
>>>> I noticed there's a deadline this midnight for the draft agenda.
>>>> This group never submitted agenda in advance, let alone the slides.
>>>> Can we follow - not the procedure - but some widely used IETF
>>>> manners in this WG too?
>>>> Alex
>>>>> ;)
>>>>> Thomas
>>>>> On Wed, October 28, 2009 5:26 am, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Thomas,
>>>>>> On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 05:15 -0700, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, October 28, 2009 4:57 am, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>>>>>>> Alex,
>>>>>>>>> YEs I believe it is unreasonable to adopt that single
>>>>>>>>> document when a competitor document exists and which is
>>>>>>>>> technically more inline with what I think.
>>>>>>> Also, duly note that the
>>>>>>> draft-bernardos-autoconf-addressing-model document did not
>>>>>>> exist and the chairs (and the WG) were not made aware that it
>>>>>>> was under development, at the time of approval of 
>>>>>>> draft-ietf-autoconf-...
>>>>>> True, we have been working on this since last IETF meeting. Had
>>>>>> we (the authors) known that we were about to adopt a document
>>>>>> as WG draft, we would have submitted it earlier.
>>>>>> As I mentioned in a previous e-mail, I think it'd be better to
>>>>>> have a discussion on the content of both drafts before really
>>>>>> deciding on which one should be taken as baseline, but this is
>>>>>> my personal opinion. Sorry, but after 5 years working on this
>>>>>> (and I've been contributing to the WG since the very beginning)
>>>>>> I don't buy the "we are in a hurry" argument :-). Discussing
>>>>>> both drafts in Hiroshima would not harm and may be help.
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Carlos
>>>>>>> Your opinion is, however, noted.
>>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>>> I am aware that you wanted to see the other document
>>>>>>>> adopted instead. But note that I said "given the opinions
>>>>>>>> in the group" and not any individual's opinion. We all know
>>>>>>>> that there is no unanimous agreement about this, but I was
>>>>>>>> curious if someone thought that the chairs had somehow
>>>>>>>> missed that a large part of the group disagreed with the
>>>>>>>> idea of adopting the DT document.
>>>>>>>> Jari
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Autoconf
>>>>>>>> mailing list [e-mail] 
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Autoconf
>>>>>>> mailing list [e-mail] 
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>>>>>> -- Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net GPG
>>>>>> FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67
>>>>> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing
>>>>> list [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>>>> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing
>>>> list [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Autoconf mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
> 
>