Subject: Slightly updated announcement for interim meeting

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 15:17:53 +0200

This will be coming via IETF-Announce too.

    Brian
    co-chair
Updated announcement and agenda for MULTI6 WG interim meeting
=============================================================

Date:  Monday June 14, 2004
Time:  09:00 - 17:00  PDT
Place: Loews Beach Hotel, Santa Monica, CA, USA

This is the same location as the North American IPv6 Summit;
see http://www.usipv6.com/ for full logistics and hotel discount 
code. (Of course, you may also wish to register for the Summit.)

For the Loews, make your hotel reservation ASAP [needed to be before 
May 21st to get the discount]. There are many other hotels and plenty
of restaurants nearby.

The room will hold about 100 people; at the moment we do not plan
on requiring formal advance registration. The informal count of
attendees was about 26 as of May 24.

Breakfast and lunch NOT provided. Coffee breaks planned
at 10:00 and 15:00 PDT, lunch break around noon.

An informal "Bar BOF" will be held in the late afternoon of Sunday 
June 13 to prepare for the main meeting. Location: somewhere in
Loews Hotel.

The goal of the meeting is to reach common ground on architectural
analysis and on the impact of various classes of solution. It is
*not* to discuss solutions in detail or to choose one of them.

Draft agenda (comments welcome).

1. IPR reminder, logistics, agenda bashing (co-chairs, 10 min.)

2. Charter review (co-chairs, 5 min.)
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/multi6-charter.html

3. Review "Things to think about" draft (Eliot Lear, 45 min.)

   draft-lear-multi6-things-to-think-about-02.txt

4. Review threats draft(s) if updated (leader(s) TBD, 45 min.)

   draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-XX.txt
   draft-ohta-multi6-threats-XX.txt

5. Review + discuss future Architecture draft (Geoff Huston 
   by phone, co-chairs, 2 hours)

   draft-huston-multi6-architectures-00.txt

6. Open discussion on the impact of various categories of solutions
   (co-chairs, 1 hour)

7. Conclusions of meeting and where to move from here.

    Brian Carpenter & Kurt Erik Lindqvist, multi6 co-chairs

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 16:14:34 +0200

I've just submitted an update to things-to-think-about.  Should show up 
in a day or two.  If I've still missed your favorite nit, please let me 
know.

Eliot

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 10:36:35 +0200

> 6. Open discussion on the impact of various categories of solutions

I would like to repeat my suggestion that the things to think about and 
threats stuff be moved to the end of the meeting, as going in such 
detail before even discussing the architecture is likely to waste time 
on details that will turn out to be moot later.

Also, I was wondering if it were possible to allow those who are so 
inclined to make a sort of "opening statement" or have something 
similar to what the IAB did a few IETF meetings ago. I think we can 
assume that people who take the time to attend this interim meeting and 
have a point to make, will make sure they get to make this point, so 
even though this would technically eat up a lot of time (even at 5 
minutes a pop, if many people want to do this), in reality it wouldn't 
make a big difference. I think this would help focus on the important 
issues and avoid the common syndrome where during the discussions every 
speaker brings up something different from the previous one.

About the jabber thing: wouldn't it be more useful to see if we can 
stream the audio? That way there is no need for a volunteer to break 
any typing records and jabber remains available as an out of band 
channel. (Do we have a jabber conference server, btw?)

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 11:04:50 +0200

Personal comments (i.e. not responding as co-chair) below...

> on details that will turn out to be moot later.

My view is that these are "business as usual" items that can be done fairly
quickly, but there is a high chance they would be pushed off the agenda
if left to the end. But I certainly agree that they will both need to
be updated as a result of the architecture discussion.

> inclined to make a sort of "opening statement" or have something similar 
> to what the IAB did a few IETF meetings ago. I think we can assume that 
> people who take the time to attend this interim meeting and have a point 
> to make, will make sure they get to make this point, so even though this 
> would technically eat up a lot of time (even at 5 minutes a pop, if many 
> people want to do this), in reality it wouldn't make a big difference. I 
> think this would help focus on the important issues and avoid the common 
> syndrome where during the discussions every speaker brings up something 
> different from the previous one.

This is an approach to starting the discussion of the architecture. We do
need some structure in that discussion, and this might be a good way to
help us focus. So my idea would be to do this after Geoff presents.
> stream the audio? That way there is no need for a volunteer to break any 
> typing records and jabber remains available as an out of band channel. 
> (Do we have a jabber conference server, btw?)

I am told the IETF jabber server is always up. Frankly I have no confidence
that we will get enough reliable throughput from an arbitrary hotel to
run streaming, whereas jabber has a good chance of working even if the
network is spotty. So I think we should go for jabber anyway. If anyone
volunteers to run audio streaming, so much the better.

(co-chair hat on again)

We are still looking for a jabber scribe!

    Brian

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 11:21:26 +0200

>> I would like to repeat my suggestion that the things to think about 
>> and threats stuff be moved to the end of the meeting, as going in 
>> such detail before even discussing the architecture is likely to 
>> waste time on details that will turn out to be moot later.

> quickly,

Hm, 1.5 hours isn't all THAT quickly...

> but there is a high chance they would be pushed off the agenda
> if left to the end.

That's better than pushing the discussion off the agenda. As there are 
only three drafts on the agenda and no other IETF stuff going on, I 
think it's reasonable to assume everyone has read the drafts anyway...

>> similar to what the IAB did a few IETF meetings ago.

> help us focus. So my idea would be to do this after Geoff presents.

Ok.

> I am told the IETF jabber server is always up.

Excellent.

> Frankly I have no confidence
> run streaming,

Sounds like a challenge.  :-)

> whereas jabber has a good chance of working even if the

I'll see what I can do. Will we be using microphones?

> We are still looking for a jabber scribe!

I suppose I can do some of this, but not the entire day...

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 14:50:51 +0200

...
> I'll see what I can do. Will we be using microphones?

Thanks! Yes, at least we are paying for audio support.

> I suppose I can do some of this, but not the entire day...

Great. Now we need another volunteer or two...

     Brian

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 11:08:03 +0200

> Thanks! Yes, at least we are paying for audio support.

As for this. I am bringing my iSight so we could even try and do the 
ad-hoc streaming we did from Seoul, but that means that I will be 
without my laptop for the day. So I guess I have to actually listen 
then :-) But we could talk about this off-line.

- - kurtis -