Subject: Re: [midcom] Draft agenda

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 13:33:29 -0500

Melinda,

Please add the I-D "draft-renkel-middlebox-tunnels-00.txt" to the agenda.
I will limit the presentation to 5 minutes. Hopefully, we can limit the
discussion to another 5 or 10 minutes.

Thanks,

Jim

Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>@ietf.org on 06/25/2002 11:07:29 AM

Sent by:  [email-masked]

To:   [email-masked]
cc:
Subject:  [midcom] Draft agenda

I've appended a draft agenda.  Please let me know if
I've missed any agenda items, missed any relevant drafts,
or have gotten the revision numbers on drafts incorrect.
Note also that the Cordell SPAN draft hasn't yet been
posted.

Thanks,

Melinda

Middlebox Communication WG (midcom)

Tuesday, July 15 at 13:00-15:15
===============================

CHAIR:  Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>

AGENDA:

Agenda-bashing
Status update
midcom protocol evaluation
midcom protocol semantics
Pre-midcom
    STUN
    SPAN

Documents:
draft-ietf-midcom-protocol-eval-01.txt
draft-stiemerling-midcom-semantics-00.txt
draft-taylor-midcom-semantics-00.txt
draft-ietf-midcom-stun-00.txt
draft-cordell-midcom-span-a-00.txt

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 14:50:28 -0400

>discussion to another 5 or 10 minutes.

We don't do presentations.  

Some process things:

1) The work of the IETF is accomplished on mailing lists.  Every
four months or so we try to meet face-to-face in order to resolve
things that could benefit from "lively" discussion and in order to
stress ourselves with insufficient sleep and too much heavy food
2) Meeting time is for discussion only - we don't do presentations
3) Nobody gets meeting time unless they've got specific issues
requiring resolution or for very short status updates (those updates
belong on the mailing list, too).  
4) The requirements document has been approved by the working group
and the IESG, and is now sitting in the RFC editor's queue.  We can't
go back and revisit it without changing the WG charter
5) We work by rough consensus and dashed hopes, which means that there
has to be *substantial* agreement among working group participants to
move something along, and even then it faces the possibility of being
rejected by the IESG
and most of all,
6) The work of the IETF is accomplished on mailing lists.

It's my understanding that what you'd like to see happen is for the
requirements and framework documents to be extended to include RSIP
tunnels.  You've proposed this several times and there doesn't seem
to be agreement from others.  The process of developing both documents
took over a year and Mike Borella participated in the first BOF
that kicked off this effort; I don't see support for using RSIP
tunneling let alone for going back and revving our foundation documents
despite there having been plenty of opportunity for your ideas to
have been heard.

Melinda