Subject: Conference Call

From: "Jason, Jamie" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:21:38 -0700

The authors of the IPsec Policy Configuration Model would like to have a
conference call to work out issues that were brought up during the IPSP WG
meeting in Minneapolis.  The conference call will be on Thursday, May 2 at
8:00 PDT.  It is expected that the people in the cc: list will be the ones
most interested in participating, but it is open to the entire WG.  If you
would like to participate, please email me directly so I can get a count for
when I shedule the conference call through our local IT group.  I'll post
details about the call when I get them...unfortunately, I don't think that
our conference calls are toll-free.

Jamie

----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Jason                       email: [email-masked]
Intel Architecture Labs           phone: 503-264-9531
2111 NE 25th Avenue               fax:   503-264-9428
Hillsboro, OR 97124
                          
"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift."
 - Steve Prefontaine

All opinions expressed are:
1.  Entirely my own.
2.  Not necessarily shared by my employer.
3.  Unencumbered by the thought process.
----------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Marcus Leech" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 09:09:58 -0400

> our conference calls are toll-free.
Jamie:

This counts as an offical "interim meeting", and as such is subject to
some
  IETF procedural things--including more notice, I believe.  I'll have
to check
  and get back to you.

---

From: Jon Saperia <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:56:17 -0400

My take is that this is far from an IETF Interim Meeting. This is an
editors meeting. These and design team meetings are accepted and
permitted - at least on my past experience and reading 2418. Of course
what comes out needs to be on the WG list, etc.

/jon
>   IETF procedural things--including more notice, I believe.  I'll have

Thanks,
/jon
--

Jon Saperia		     [email-masked]
			     Phone: 617-744-1079
			     Fax:   617-249-0874
			     http://www.jdscons.com/

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Apr 2001 15:16:59 -0700

>>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:21:38 -0700, "Jason, Jamie" <[email-masked]> said:

Jamie> The authors of the IPsec Policy Configuration Model would like
Jamie> to have a conference call to work out issues that were brought
Jamie> up during the IPSP WG meeting in Minneapolis.  The conference
Jamie> call will be on Thursday, May 2 at 8:00 PDT.  It is expected
Jamie> that the people in the cc: list will be the ones most
Jamie> interested in participating, but it is open to the entire WG.
Jamie> If you would like to participate, please email me directly so I
Jamie> can get a count for when I shedule the conference call through
Jamie> our local IT group.  I'll post details about the call when I
Jamie> get them...unfortunately, I don't think that our conference
Jamie> calls are toll-free.

I think that it would be good to have an agenda to help decide whether
this was a good thing to call in for or not.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
NAI Labs
Network Associates

---

From: Jon Saperia <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 08:13:32 -0400

> this was a good thing to call in for or not.

Always a good idea. Given that I have not done (yet) at least on of the
things I was assigned, one suggestion for an agenda topic would be a
discussion of the open issues and how we are proposing to resolve
them. My example is NOTIFICATIONS.  They are obviously tied to the rest
of the Module structure.

Thanks,
/jon
--

---

From: Eric Vyncke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:04:05 +0200

Jamie,

Is it Wednesday May 2nd (then I cannot attend) or Thursday May 3rd (then I
can attend) ?

I do appreciate the timing which is convenient for Europe ;-)

Regarding the agenda, I guess it will be for the open points:
- use of granularity (the authors want to keep it like it is in -02 for
  simplicity sake)
- multiple actions: is it needed ? is it useful ? how to implement it ?
  (the authors have a current proposal that should be checked by the WG)
- use of filters for dynamic ports negotiation (the authorq want to keep 
  it like it is in -02 for simplicity sake and for RFC 2401 & Co compliance)
- ...

Regards

-eric