Re: Again no multi6 at IETF#56

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss
  and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers.  if you wish to regularly
  post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a
  message to <listname>-owner@ops.ietf.org and ask to have the alternate
  address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
  automatically accepted. ]

Given the 6+ hours of ipv6mh sessions in Atlanta, I see no problem filling
a 1 hour (or more) slot with multi6 discussion.   There have been at least
1,000 posts to ipv6mh (and multi6) since Atlanta.   So I would not be worried
at all about running out of steam inside an hour :)

Of course a productive meeting is another matter.  That means we have to
approve or ditch the requirements draft, approve a new charter, and get real
progress moving...

Tim

On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 06:31:24PM -0800, Michel Py wrote:
> Tim,
> 
> > Tim Chown wrote:
> > Could we at least not get a BoF session scheduled
> 
> In which area? Did you find an AD to go for a BOF that would obviously
> conflict with multi6? Having a meeting for the purpose of having a
> meeting does not do any good to anybody.
> 
> Little reminder for those that were not present: The last multi6 meeting
> happened in Salt Lake in 2001, at my request. After 15 or 20 minutes out
> of the 1-hour window the meeting was over and nothing was done, which
> has not changed since. I do not see the point of having another SLC-like
> meeting, flat out a waste of time.
> 
> Michel.
>