Subject: [midcom] Upcoming meeting

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 12:36:47 -0400

As you're undoubtedly aware, there's an IETF meeting in
November.  We have relatively little on our plate at the
moment, so I've requested a one-hour slot, and the two
things (aside from a general status report) that will get
agenda time are an update on the protocol evaluation
document and discussion of the semantics document.  I'm also
going try to figure out whether or not there's anything that
we need to do on SPAN during the meeting.  Is there anything
else that requires discussion in Atlanta?

Also, tough times are making it more difficult to travel,
and some people who are interested in participating may not
be able to attend.  Are there people who will not be there
who are *definitely* interested in participating remotely?

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

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 11:23:06 +0200

Melinda,

I agree that discussing updates of the evaluation document
and the midcom semantics probably fit into one hour.

But aren't we going to have a discussion on the protocol
selection itself?

The evaluation document does not say "Protocol X is the best
choice". There is still a decision to be made that is probably
not too easy.

I thought we would have a discussion on the protocol selection in
Atlanta and I do not expect this something that fits into one hour
together with the other two issues.

Do you plan to schedule this discussion for the March IETF meeting
in San Francisco?

    Juergen

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 08:27:25 -0400

> But aren't we going to have a discussion on the protocol

We won't, for several reasons.  The first is that the
document is still under heavy revision in response to
comments from the IESG, and unfortunately isn't yet stable
enough to be used as a solid platform from which to launch a
meaningful discussion.  The other and arguably more
signifant reason is that it hasn't been discussed on the
mailing list.  The expectation is that meeting time will not
be spent on anything that hasn't been discussed on the
mailing list first, and that it will be used to help us
resolve existing issues that would benefit from face-to-face
discussion.

We may spend some time talking about process, but not
content.

Melinda

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 14:45:41 +0200

Melinda,

> mailing list.  The expectation is that meeting time will not

Do you have a rough idea on when to initiate such a discussion
on the mailing list?

I think that the evaluation document is already pretty stable.
The "heavy" revisions concern SNMP only. And from what I've seen
in Davids comments, there are some changes in the general
considerations on SNMP, and there are changes arguing 'why' a
requirement is met. But I do not expect any change in the T,P+,P,F
rating of SNMP (maybe with one exception).

I agree that we should not finally decide on the protocol before
the evaluation I-D passed the IESG. But with the current version
I do not see a good reason for further delaying the discussion.

    Juergen