Re: (2) Draft IETF X400-OPS minutes of the Columbus meeting

[" (Jim Romaguera)" <[e-mail]>]

> 
> 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.