Re: [Ecrit] Maastricht Agenda - 1st draft

[Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]>]

So what I get out this email is basically no time is needed for WG items. I find that surprising but will take it face value.

On the non WG items I don't think you can have any useful discussion in 10 minutes. If the purpose is to send 10 minutes advertising the draft to the WG with no discussion, then I think that is an awful agenda. My suggestions would be to prioritize these (perhaps they already are) then allocate a reasonable time to have whatever discussion is needed about each. If no discussion is needed then cancel the meeting and let some other WG use it. No doubt this will mean not all of them get discussion time but I would rather have useful convulsions about a few drafts and zero conclusions about a bunch of drafts. 

I'm not complaining about which drafts are on the agenda or how the chairs prioritized them - I'm expressing doubt that any meaningful discussion can happen in a 10 minute slot on most of these topics. 



On Jul 22, 2010, at 6:10 , Marc Linsner (mlinsner) wrote:

> Cullen, Bernard,
> 
> The WG items are top of the list, down to and including rough-loc.  The next
> 5 items are individual drafts that have been discussed by the group before.
> The chairs and ADs have determined these 5 drafts fit within the current
> charter, have community support, and want to refresh the community and
> verify they are ready to adopt them as WG items.  These 5 items are in order
> of a priority the chairs determined is an expectation of the community.  The
> last item is an individual draft that the author asked to present to the
> community (and was denied time at the last meeting).
> 
> Why not more time on WG items?
> 
> The WG items that are in need of work are (all other wg items are either
> RFC'ed or in RFC Editor queue):
> 
> 1) draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync
> 2) draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-servicelistboundary
> 3) draft-ietf-ecrit-rough-loc
> 4) draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp
> 5) draft-ietf-ecrit-framework
> 
> #1 & #2 are in review by the apps area/XML Directorate, not much ECRIT can
> do until this is complete.
> 
> #3  The editors/authors have 'revitalized' their work on this, there are
> some wglc comments they are addressing, 10 min. to present the status of
> that work.

> 
> #4 & #5 have been under IESG/AD review for a while and have a few comments
> from that to discuss, but these drafts have a potentially larger impact by
> the yet-to-be-determined work on the sipcore location-conveyance draft.
> Since sipcore is still discussing this draft and has yet to complete what
> location-conveyance looks like, it was felt that spending more time guessing
> what sipcore was going to do isn't real useful.
> 
> If you still think agenda changes are needed, please make suggestions.
> 
> Now, since we have the WG draft status here, I'm sure we'll save some of the
> time reserved for the chairs status update.  :^)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Marc-
> 
> 
> On 7/21/10 7:41 PM, "Bernard Aboba" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > Opinions differ as to why The Gong Show was cancelled, but we do know that
> > it was replaced by a variety show providing more finished (and less
> > controversial) fare with a larger amount of time allocated to each segment.
> > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gong_Show  for details.
> >
> > On a similar theory, it might make sense to focus the meeting time on WG
> > work items and material that is closest to adoption as a WG work item.
> > This would allow each item to be given more time.
> >
> > A Virtual Interim can then be scheduled which focuses on potential new
> > items, enabling more in-depth discussion of each item.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> > Cullen Jennings
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 1:35 PM
> > To: Marc Linsner
> > Cc: ecrit
> > Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Maastricht Agenda - 1st draft
> >
> >
> > This looks like a sipping style gong show. I don't know how you are going to
> > get anything productive done in all the 10 minute slots. Sorry I don't have
> > any useful suggestion on how to improve the agenda but seems like the
> > chairs/ADs could prioritize this somehow or other.
> >
> >
> > On Jul 14, 2010, at 5:48 , Marc Linsner wrote:
> >
> >> Below is the first draft at the agenda for Maastricht.  Final agenda
> >> is due on Monday.
> >>
> >> It's time to bash,
> >>
> >> Marc, Richard, Roger
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ----
> >> 20 min * Agenda Bashing, Draft Status Update, Charter tweaks (Marc
> >> Linsner, Richard Barnes, Roger Marshall)
> >>
> >> 20 min * PhoneBCP & Framework (Brian Rosen/James Polk)
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-phonebcp-15
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-framework-11
> >> Intention: Discussion about the latest changes - There have been
> >> changes due to IESG review, more changes required due to
> > Location-Conveyance rework.
> >>
> >> 10 min. * Rough Location (Richard Barnes)
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-ecrit-rough-loc-03
> >> Intention: Update on changes required to match Location Conveyance.
> >>
> >> 10 min. * 10 min. * Additional Data (Brian Rosen)
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-ecrit-additional-data-00
> >> Intention: Evaluate for WG item candidate - determine next steps.
> >>
> >> 10 min. * Data Only (Brian Rosen/Hannes Tschofenig)
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-ecrit-data-only-ea-01
> >> Intention: Evaluate for WG item candidate - determine next steps.
> >>
> >> 10 min. * Unauthenticated Access (Stephen McCann)
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-unauthenticated-acc
> >> ess-08
> >> Intention: Evaluate for WG item candidate - determine next steps.
> >>
> >> 10 min. * PSAP Callback (Henning Schulzrinne)
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schulzrinne-ecrit-psap-callback-03
> >> Intention: Evaluate for WG item candidate - determine next steps.
> >>
> >> 10 min. * Trustworthy Location (Hannes Tschofenig/Bernard Aboba)
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tschofenig-ecrit-trustworthy-location
> >> -03
> >> Intention: Evaluate for WG item candidate - determine next steps.
> >>
> >> 10 min. * Civic Boundary  (Martin Thomson)
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-ecrit-civic-boundary-00
> >> Intention: Review applicability to ECRIT.
> >>
> >> 10 min. * Open Discussion
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Ecrit mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
> >
> >
> > Cullen Jennings
> > For corporate legal information go to:
> > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ecrit mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
> >
> 
> 


Cullen Jennings
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html