Re: [dmm] [MEXT] IETF-81

Hi Julien,

WG mailing list sometimes leads to a lengthy discussion, which creates 
misunderstandings and frustration that could be avoided if it was 
discussed in a F2F meeting. Urgency is one important aspect but mutual 
understanding is another good aspect of F2F meeting. It is pity to miss 
such a precious opportunity for nothing in spite of a couple of very 
interesting I-Ds awaiting a good discussion...

-- 
Hidetoshi

(2011/07/06 23:31), Julien Laganier wrote:
> Hidetoshi,
>
> If WG mailing list on a given topic doesn' t happen in a timely
> fashion, I would suggest that either people are not interested in the
> topic, or it's not urgent to them.  If a topic isn't urgent for
> people, then IMHO giving them face-to-face time isn't urgent either.
>
> --julien
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Hidetoshi Yokota<yokota@kddilabs.jp>  wrote:
>> Hi Julien,
>>
>> WG mailing list is the base of the discussion, but sometimes it takes very
>> long time to proceed, by which it loses timeliness. Network-initiated flow
>> mobility or Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) come from urgent needs and
>> IETF has the reputation of responding to such needs in a timely manner. F2F
>> meeting is generally more efficient than ML discussion and effective for the
>> chairs to progress the standards process. I believe that ML discussion and
>> F2F meeting are the two wheels of moving I-Ds forward and we shouldn't miss
>> the opportunity of F2F meetings, which happen only three times in a year.
>>
>> Regards,
>> --
>> Hidetoshi
>>
>> (2011/07/06 0:29), Julien Laganier wrote:
>>>
>>> Dirk and Hidetoshi,
>>>
>>> Face to face meeting time should IMHO primarily be used to resolve
>>> issues that cannot be resolved on the WG mailing list. As of now I do
>>> not see any, hence the absence of a MEXT WG meeting.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> --julien
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:09 AM,<Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de>    wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> I agree with Hidetoshi that the flow binding initiation draft should need
>>>> more discussion - as well as DMM progress in the framework of MEXT and
>>>> potentially the vehicular topics recently mentioned by Alex on this list.
>>>> Wouldn't that qualify to include a WG session meeting in
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/81/?
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Dirk
>>>>
>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>> Von: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von
>>>> Hidetoshi Yokota
>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Juni 2011 04:12
>>>> An: mext@ietf.org
>>>> Betreff: Re: [MEXT] IETF-81
>>>>
>>>> Hi Julien and all,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for our late notice, but we just submitted the revised version of
>>>> "Home Agent Initiated Flow Binding for Mobile IPv6" and would like to
>>>> discuss it at the next IETF meeting. Since this topic hasn't got
>>>> consensus and requires an intensive discussion, a face to face meeting
>>>> will be needed.
>>>>
>>>> Please take a look at the following I-D:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yokota-mext-ha-init-flow-binding-00.txt
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance for your support,
>>>> --
>>>> Hidetoshi
>>>>
>>>> (2011/06/28 1:36), Julien Laganier wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> at this point we do not have anything on our plate that would require
>>>>> face to face discussion thus the MEXT WG will not meet in Quebec.
>>>>>
>>>>> --julien&      marcelo
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> MEXT mailing list
>>>>> MEXT@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> MEXT mailing list
>>>> MEXT@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> dmm mailing list
>>>> dmm@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>