Re: [EAI] Fwd: 82nd IETF - WG/BoF Agendas -- Draft agenda uploaded

[Joseph Yee <[e-mail]>]

All,

Draft agenda uploaded for feedback.  Final agenda deadline is next Monday, 17:00 Pacific Time.

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/agenda/eai.txt

Best,
Joseph


On 2011-11-02, at 8:15 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> 
> 
> --On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 00:33 -0400 Joseph Yee
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Draft agenda to post Wednesday.  Given RFC5336bis, RFC5335bis,
>> RFC5337bis are in IESG evaluation, we should start focus more
>> to the remaining core docs.  Please let John and I know if you
>> want some of the session time for presentation.
> 
> Specifically, while circumstances could force us to make
> last-minute changes, my assumption is that 5336bis and
> 5335biswill be done and signed off before IETF 82 starts.
> 5337bis has already been signed off and forwarded to the RFC
> Editor; we are not going to talk about it unless someone
> discovers a showstopper.  I think we should allocate a brief
> slot for any discussion of 4952bis (framework), since the second
> Last Call ends on 14 November, but don't expect to spend any
> time on it unless problems turn up (see below).
> 
> So I hope the meeting can focus on three main topics: 
> 
> 	-- the three documents that make up the POP/IMAP group
> 	(i.e., including popimap-downgrade).   The authors and
> 	co-chairs believe that, modulo an editing pass and some
> 	issues that are identified in the document, those drafts
> 	are just about ready to go to the IESG.  My hope is that
> 	we can tentatively resolve any outstanding issues during
> 	the meeting, produce (largely editorial) revisions right
> 	after the meeting, and then go into the Last Call
> 	process with the goal of having them finished before the
> 	end of the calendar year.  
> 
> 	-- developing a plan about what to do with the
> 	"mailinglist" document.  We either need to complete one
> 	or be prepared to explain to the IESG and the community
> 	why it is not necessary.  I think we'd welcome a
> 	volunteer to do a careful review on RFC 5983 and lead a
> 	discussion about what changes and updates are required
> 	and how we might get that done.
> 	
> 	-- a discussion about what we intend to do with the
> 	various "advice" documents.  I am personally a little
> 	more comfortable moving them forward as Proposed
> 	Standard Applicability Statements than I would have been
> 	trying to publish ideas for which we have little
> 	operational experience as BCPs, but that should be part
> 	of the conversation, along with whether we have enough
> 	consensus on the subject matter to move forward and
> 	whether we can make a plan for the documents that won't
> 	take the WG another several years.
> 
> Anyone who intends to discuss the Applicability Statement versus
> BCP topic to carefully read Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 5 of RFC 2026
> before arriving at our meeting.   
> 
> Reading the latest drafts of draft-ietf-eai-5721bis (POP),
> draft-ietf-eai-5738bis (IMAP), and
> draft-ietf-eai-popimap-downgrade is going to be mandatory for
> having a useful conversation.   Please come prepared.
> 
> Finally, as another pre-meeting task, I'd encourage everyone to
> look through 4952bis, possibly in conjunction with the notes on
> reopening it circulated last week, and submit Last Call comments
> as you find appropriate.
> 
> I hope to see many of you in Taipei and to hear, on-list and
> before the meeting, from anyone who is not coming but who has
> opinions on any of those topics.
> 
> best, 
>   john
>