[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Agenda for Vienna
I'd like to take this opportunity to again ask that we put aside
our petty and trivial differences, the implementation foibles
and our particular pet proposals (mine included). Instead
we should take this time to sit down and have a collaborative
architectural discussion.
It is the perogative and responsibility of the chairs to
ensure that we make forward progress and I call on them to
step up, lead the discussion, and ensure that we stay at
a civilized and architectural level.
Once we have an architecture for a solution, THEN we can
start worrying about the bits.
This implies that we should not be looking at particular
proposals. We should not even be looking at 'categories'
of proposals. Instead, we should be talking about possible
architectures. That's one layer farther up.
Regards,
Tony
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist [mailto:kurtis@kurtis.pp.se]
| Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 8:04 AM
| To: multi6@ops.ietf.org
| Subject: Agenda for Vienna
|
|
|
| Ok, so me, Sean and Randy have been discussing a possible
| agenda for
| Vienna. We tried to incorporate as much of the views as
| possible. Our
| suggestion is as follows :
|
|
| 1. We schedule two sessions.
|
| 2. The first session is early in the week, and have one topic. The
| proposals that have then been made formally to the IETF
| will each get
| around five minutes. Each presenter will be a member of a
| "panel". The
| working-group and the other presenters are allowed to ask
| questions on
| the proposals and try and better understand the proposals.
|
| 3. The second session will be scheduled later in the week.
| This will
| concentrate on the two main proposals that are currently
| being worked
| on. Those being loc/id which seems to be the main one, and
| host based
| solutions. This session would be started off with an
| overview of the
| status on this, and perhaps a summary of the earlier session.
|
| So to elaborate a bit. The first session is not meant to
| be a "survivor
| wins" session; and that will put some work on the chairs. It's
| intention is to give a clearer picture of the proposals. The main
| reason for the first session would be to allow discussions
| around the
| proposals in the hallways, leading up to the next session
| (so we will
| try and have a few days in between). The first session is
| also not mean
| to be q "qualifying" session for the second one. To me
| (and from what I
| read on the list - most others) it is very clear that
| there is only two
| real solutions being worked on at the moment. I also want
| to point out
| that the WG sessions are not there for a full presentation of the
| proposals - You are supposed to read the drafts :-) ;
| which means that
| you need to submit the drafts. As for members of the
| panel, I would
| personally not want to see several similar proposals being
| presented,
| but there aren't that many out there anyway so this should
| not be an
| issue.
|
| The second session is meant to be an opportunity to dig
| more into what
| we think are required of each of the solutions; what the
| issues are;
| ways forward. As has been said a number of times on this
| list by Vienna
| we need to have a lot of basic issues sorted out by Vienna.
|
| As I see it at the moment I would schedule 1h for the
| first session and
| 2h for the second one.
|
| Last, I guess one of the questions will be "why the first
| session?".
| The intent is only that a better understanding of other
| proposals will
| help us with more ideas. I don't see the main track
| changing unless all
| of a sudden a large part of the working group change their minds.
|
| I will leave this a few days for comments and then go
| ahead and make
| the request to the secretariat. We would like to do this
| as quick as
| possible though. And I hope that there isn't to many
| issues with this
| proposal.
|
| Best regards,
|
| - kurtis -
|
|
|