Re: (2) Draft IETF X400-OPS minutes of the Columbus meeting
" (Jim Romaguera)" <romaguera@netconsult.ch> Thu, 15 April 1993 10:42 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01748; 15 Apr 93 6:42 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01744; 15 Apr 93 6:42 EDT
Received: from mhs-relay.cs.wisc.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05366; 15 Apr 93 6:42 EDT
X400-Received: by mta mhs-relay.cs.wisc.edu in /PRMD=XNREN/ADMD= /C=US/; Relayed; Thu, 15 Apr 1993 05:08:00 +0000
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 05:08:00 +0000
X400-Originator: cargille@cs.wisc.edu
X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:;
X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=XNREN/ADMD= /C=US/; mhs-relay..456:15.03.93.10.08.00]
Priority: Non-Urgent
DL-Expansion-History: ietf-osi-x400ops@cs.wisc.edu ; Thu, 15 Apr 1993 05:07:59 +0000;
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: " (Jim Romaguera)" <romaguera@netconsult.ch>
Message-ID: <9304151107.AA00452@netconsult.ch>
To: " (Urs Eppenberger)" <Eppenberger@switch.ch>
Cc: ietf-osi-x400ops@cs.wisc.edu
In-Reply-To: <1439*/S=Eppenberger/O=switch/PRMD=SWITCH/ADMD=ARCOM/C=CH/@MHS>
Subject: Re: (2) Draft IETF X400-OPS minutes of the Columbus meeting
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
> > Dear colleages, > > here is a new verions of the draft minutes which include comments from > Allan, Stef and Gillian. This version is without page breaks since it is > intended to include them in the IETF proceedings. > Comments are still welcome, but they will probably not make it into the > proceedings. ==> I have 2 points, 1 is a comment on the minutes and 1 is a comment on the procedure. First the procedure point, ==> Tony and Alf (& Erik), I think you need to raise a point with the powers that be and it goes something like '... it is unreasonable to have the first version of minutes of our work coming out (and very quickly indeed, thanks Urs) and expect closure on comments within 24 hours or so....'. I know that you are constrained by those that must make the proceedings, but the process seems very flawed. It seems to come down to a choice of a) unverified minutes or b) no minutes in the proceedings. Both choices are bad, in my opinion. ==> Hi Urs, My comments follow relating to the discussion about GO MHS... '.....work our procedures to join,.....' I wasn't quite clear I understood the above (me missing it I guess), so I thought it would be easier if I just wrote how I recall the discussion. I think it went something like...... o it is seems like a good idea to merge the COSINE MHS and GO MHS services. o however before rushing into this, as it seems quite a large step, it would be a good idea that the group understand what the consequences/issues of such a merge would be. As no one seemed to have a clue of what this meant in practice and no one had seen any details on this, someone (Urs as the proposer??) should right these down on a piece of paper. Some things mentioned that need to be addressed are, o what does such a merge mean in terms of policy control? i.e. who or what does this service report to? e.g. RARE OU, IETF X.400 OPS, etc o how can it remain open if people have to pay (hard one :-)). o maybe splitting of the coordination part provided by the project team into various parts i.e. mapping table coordination, assisting new services, etc., to reduce the cost makes sense. o and then we got on to the point about whether this working group should be the place where this gets discussed anyway. And if not, where? And at that point Erik got the job to check around with some other 'more political' people to get some feedback on these issues and report back.
- (2) Draft IETF X400-OPS minutes of the Columbus m… Urs Eppenberger
- Re: (2) Draft IETF X400-OPS minutes of the Columb… (Jim Romaguera)