Re: Agenda and Package for June 26, 2003 Telechat

[hardie@qualcomm.com]

I tend to use the web agenda as well, but I'm not sure that
all of the same pieces get into that.  As an example, I sent
a proposed DNP note with the agenda item for draft-paskin-doi-uri.
In the web agenda, the item has no ballot because it is an
individual submission, so it cannot be attached to a ballot.
The other link is to the draft directly and probably shouldn't
be changed.  While it would be possible to include the whole
thing as text in the web agenda in the Note: section,
it's actually quite long and that might make the agenda harder
to use if it were general.

Here's a copy of the note:

> This document proposes a top-level URI scheme, doi, and contains
> details about the usage of this identifier in a community of use
> centered on the International DOI Foundation.  After receiving this
> draft from the RFC Editor, the IESG requested that the URI be
> reviewed by the team at uri-review@ietf.org to see if it fit within
> the guidelines established by RFC 2717/BCP35.  Though the authors
> and reviewers have had a productive discussion of the draft,
> the IESG has concluded that this draft does not meet the requirements
> of RFC 2717, section 3.2.
>
> The IESG notes, however, that the original intention of those crafting
> RFC 2717 was to set up registration trees outside the IETF tree, in order to
> enable registrations by those whose community of use lay largely 
> outside the context
> of IETF standards.  After a long pause in the development of those 
> registration
> procedures, the responsible AD has asked Larry Masinter to take on editorship
> of a proposed set of procedures for these registrations.  The IESG encourages
> the draft's authors to work with him on those guidelines and, when they
> are complete, to register the doi scheme in the non-IETF tree that they will
> set up.
I'd link that much text, rather than include it in a web agenda, but I'm not
sure how to make that work.

				regards,
					Ted Hardie
At 8:22 AM -0700 6/25/03, Bill Fenner wrote:
> I very rarely use the email agenda; I usually use the web version.
> I looked at the email versions last week and this week, and I can't make
> any sense of them at all, I think mostly because of the issue that Randy
> brought up.  For me, the visual distinction between headings and documents
> (e.g. indentation) and between individual documents (e.g. vertical
> whitespace) is crucial.  I didn't comment because I don't usually use
> the email version.
>
>   Bill