FWD>Returned Mail re Talk a

[Geoff Thompson <Geoff_Thompson.ENGIN#u#[e-mail]>]

Mail*Link(r) SMTP               FWD>Returned Mail re Talk about MIB
Marshall-
This evidently didn't get out last weekend so I am resending it.
Geoff

--------------------------------------
Date: 7/18/93 5:57 PM
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem
    -------------- Special condition follows --------------
Unable to deliver mail after 1 day(s). Recipient(s):
[e-mail], [e-mail],
Geoff_Thompson.ENGIN#u#[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
    -------------- Message follows --------------
Date: 17 Jul 1993 17:52:45 U
From: "Geoff Thompson" <Geoff_Thompson.ENGIN#u#[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Talk about MIB 
To: "IETF Area Director for Network" <[e-mail]>us>,
    "Geoff Thompson" <Geoff_Thompson.ENGIN#u#[e-mail]>om>,
    [e-mail],
    "Vint Cerf" <[e-mail]>us>,
    "Phil Gross" <[e-mail]>

        Reply to:   RE>>Talk about MIB 
Marshall-

As written I saw it as a free speech issue.  It is not my definition of
informal here because that wasn't my term nor was I proposing the "informal
meeting".  Those were the words of David Arneson.  (ref: Message-Id:
<[e-mail]>)

Therefore it is my belief that they were not proposing to call it a WG meeting.
 You made it perfectly clear that there would not be one in your message
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Your wording in Message-Id: <[e-mail]> specifically
precluded any kind of "meeting". 

<<As Pete Wilson stated I don't see any reason why we can not hold an
<<informal meeting to discuss the current MIB and where we need it to
<<transition.  Since we were all planning to meet at 1:30 on Wednesday
<<why don't we plan to meet at the same time.
.
.
>There will be no meeting relating to the Chassis MIB effort at
>Amsterdam.  I refer you to my message of yesterday which details the
>options open to the WG.  Meeting next week isn't one of them.

Perhaps it was due to Arneson's lack of care in choosing the precisely
(politically) correct term.  If he had said "gathering" instead of "informal
meeting" would your response have been different?

As you probably know by now, I was not able to attend the Amsterdam meeting to
lodge my protest in the open meeting.  I copied this to higher levels because I
wanted to get the issue addressed instead of getting involved in an extended
flame session that these lists are famous for.  I'm willing to reduce the
audience any time.

Geoff
--------------------------------------
Date: 7/11/93 6:57 AM
To: Geoff Thompson
From: IETF Area Director for Network
Geoff - this isn't a free speech issue.  It is unclear to me what you
mean by an "INFORMAL" meeting.

  - Meeting slots at an IETF meeting are controlled by the IETF
    Secretariat in coordination with the appropriate Area Director.  The
    Chassis MIB WG is not qualified to meet at Amsterdam.  My note
    specifically said that.

  - If some people want to meet in a hallway, a bar, or a restaurant, as
    long as they don't call it a WG meeting, that's fine.  My note did not
    prohibit that.

This latter kind of gathering is not an IETF meeting, as it is neither a
WG or BOF meeting.

If you wish to discuss this matter further, you can raise it at either
the NM Area open meeting (tuesday morning) or the IETF open plenary
(thursday evening).  If you still are not satisifed, there is a specific
appeals process available, which has been repeatedly published.  In
future, you might perhaps try following the procedure instead of
invoking the IETF chair and the ISOC president all in one shot.

/mtr

------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by engtwomac.synoptics.com with SMTP;11 Jul 1993 06:57:53 U
Received: from CS.UTK.EDU by synoptics.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA22516; Sun, 11 Jul 93 06:45:44 PDT
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK)
	id AA25314; Sun, 11 Jul 93 09:43:22 -0400
X-Resent-To: [e-mail] ; Sun, 11 Jul 1993 09:43:21 EDT
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Received: from ppp.dbc.mtview.ca.us by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP
(5.61+IDA+UTK-930125/2.8s-UTK)
	id AA25306; Sun, 11 Jul 93 09:43:17 -0400
Received: from localhost by dbc.mtview.ca.us (5.65/3.1.090690)
	id AA13041; Sun, 11 Jul 93 06:42:26 -0700
To: Geoff_Thompson.ENGIN#u#[e-mail] (Geoff Thompson)
Cc: [e-mail], Vint Cerf <[e-mail]>us>,
        Phil Gross <[e-mail]>
From: IETF Area Director for Network Management <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Talk about MIB 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "09 Jul 1993 14:31:44 +0800."            
<[e-mail]> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1993 06:42:23 -0700
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]




------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Date: 18 Jul 1993 17:57:36 U
From: "Mail Delivery Subsystem" <[e-mail]>
To: geoff_thompson.engin#u#[e-mail]
Subject: Returned Mail