Subject: [dcp] draft dccp agenda

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:09:41 -0700

Here's what I have for an agenda to discuss in Yokohama.  Have I missed 
anything?

0. agenda bashing (falk)
1. charter review (falk)
2. significant changes in spec (kohler)
3. open issues (kohler, summarizing from list)
4. implementation reports
5. adjourn

Regarding 4., if you'd like some time to discuss your dccp implementation, 
you need to send a note with background to the mail list *first*.  This way 
we can use the meeting time to discuss issues and problems, rather than 
introductory material.

--aaron

_______________________________________________
dcp mailing list: [email-masked]
archives: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcp
project: http://www.icir.org/kohler/dcp/

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:26:43 +0200

Hi Aaron,

Shouldn't there be some time for discussing requirements on DCCP? I 
would also like to see a presentation from Kohler about what 
requirements they have seen and address by the current proposal.

Regards

Magnus

Aaron Falk wrote:

> Here's what I have for an agenda to discuss in Yokohama.  Have I 
> missed anything?
>
>
> 0. agenda bashing (falk)
> 1. charter review (falk)
> Regarding 4., if you'd like some time to discuss your dccp 
> implementation, you need to send a note with background to the mail 
> list *first*.  This way we can use the meeting time to discuss issues 
> and problems, rather than introductory material.
>
> --aaron
>

-- 

Magnus Westerlund 

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research ERA/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 15:19:42 -0700

Magnus-

The document draft-floyd-dcp-problem-00.txt has been submitted as an 
informal requirements summary.  This document has been out since February 
and there has been very little, if any, discussion about changes to 
requirements.  It's not a good use of valuable working group time to review 
a doc that's been out for a while.  If you have some issues with the 
problem statement, let's surface them on the mail list first.

--aaron

--On Tuesday, June 25, 2002 09:26:43 AM +0200 Magnus Westerlund 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Aaron,
>
> Shouldn't there be some time for discussing requirements on DCCP? I would
> also like to see a presentation from Kohler about what requirements they
> have seen and address by the current proposal.
>
> Regards
>
> Magnus