Re: Agenda for Vienna

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Randy;

> >> Say again? I think I have made it pretty clear that we will not apply 
> >> for three 2h sessions.
> > You are a (co-)chair, not an AD.
> > That is why you, not the AD, are the problem.
> > In addition, it is another problem that you have little understanding
> > on IETF procedure.
> > Randy, have you recognized that, unless the problems are solved, there
> > is no point to trying to have a different AD to approve it.
> 
> what i recognize is a lot of rude fighting and little technical
> content.  and it is technical content which gets meeting slots.

Technical content?

The first step is to write drafts. The second step is to read them.
Then, discussions could begin.

As you know, I have wrote a draft with techncal contents long ago.

Relatively recently, as discussions not on a requirement draft has
been strongly discouraged, Sean asked several questions and I gave
answers.

Kurt said he has never read it and, even though he said he would
read it, I have received nothing from him, yet.

For newer proposals, it is not so clear yet, at which level of
abstraction we will be expected to spend most of the time at
Vienna, even though I explicitely asked Kurt to clarify the target.

So, how, do you think, we can move forward with technical content?

							Masataka Ohta