Re: Resolving geo discussions

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

> That is a very fair question. If we cannot do that we should not use up
> IETF finances for brainstorming with no agenda.  Times are not good the
> IETF must use their resources wisely for sure.
Valid point.

> If we build content and agenda and force some agreement and compromise
> we may be able to move forward.
Actually, I tend to have a somewhat different opinion than Randy. I 
agree that we need a solid agenda, but I also think that we need a 
meeting to get people more engaged and meeting face to face also always 
helps.

> Suggestion:
>
> Work on content and agenda so we can have meeting.  Realize folks will
> show up who are not here too and so that will, as always, be variable 
> to
> the processes so the chairs have to try to focus the meeting.  I know
> this is normal but wanted to state it.
It's a good point. Even if only people in here showed up :-)

> Agenda:
>
> Requirements state - Chairs
Well, I think we have concluded that requirements vary. We have more of 
a benchmark document, that we hopefully have published by then. I think 
that is as good starting point as we gets. Right?

> Location and Identification Architecture (can we agree on some base
> principles before the IETF and then present them at IETF) - ???
This would be good.

> Routing Problem and Complexity and where the fix has to be (same if we
> can agree on base that would be useful to IETF attendees) - ????
Do you really think that this is worth it? This will depend on the 
outcome of your first point.

> Existing work that has input to the above loc/id and route complexity
> issues:
>
> 1) MAP (michel) (send in IDs)
> 2) Mobile IPv6 idea (christian) (send in IDs)
> 3) HIP (pekka N.) (send in IDs)
Having these suggestions presented (with associated IDs) might give 
some picture of the problems of each type of solution.

> NOTE - Not sure if we agree to put out base GEO doc stuff but that
> INFO/BCP could be agenda item too but I did not see consensus on the
> mail list from my view ????
Agreed.

> Post IETF - I can look into hosting mutli6 offline whatever meeting in
> New Hampshire late September before fall IETF meeting for brainstorm
> part II as we need to do what Tony stated before that and this can be
> part II.  Times are tough for vendors but I will go ask for support of
> an offsite if folks want.  Good to schedule so folks can check out fall
> colors up here too if possible :---)  Given that I am alive and well
> after my Harley adventure and come back to the system :---)
I have been playing with this idea as well. Let's keep this option open 
for a while and see where we end up. If this is to be useful we need 
something with a lot more substance than what we have now.

- kurtis -