Subject: (multi6) 53rd IETF Meeting

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:41:45 -0800

Could the chairs give a clue to the WG if they intend to call a WG
meeting in Minneapolis? If they do, I volunteer a short 10 min to
discuss the open topics (currently 10) about the requirements draft
edits.

Thanks
Michel.

---

From: [email-masked] (Sean Doran)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:41:25 +0000 (GMT)

Michel -

| Could the chairs give a clue to the WG if they intend to call a WG
| meeting in Minneapolis? If they do, I volunteer a short 10 min to
| discuss the open topics (currently 10) about the requirements draft
| edits.

At the moment, this would be the only item on the WG meeting agenda.

Or am I missing something?

	Sean.

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 07:53:45 -0800

Sean,

>> Michel Py Wrote:

> Sean Doran wrote

Pasted below is the text that I posted to the WG mailing two weeks ago
(on 11/21). I also emailed it to you on 1/27 requesting feedback.

There as been no opposition to that text and repeated support for parts
of it, at least issuing the WG last call and possibly re-chartering.

Correct me if I am wrong, my understanding of the way it works is that
the agenda and WG last calls are the privilege of the chairs.

I suppose that I could take care of the agenda, and that between Randy,
Christian and myslef we could come with a pre-release of the re-charter.
Is that what you want us to do?

It would be nice, four weeks before the deadline, for the WG members to
know if the WG last call agreed in SLC is going to be issued, if we are
going or not to have a meeting in Minneapolis, if we are going to re-
charter, etc.

Time goes fast, and I was hoping we could have a more productive meeting
than the one we had in SLC, wich means it needs to be prepared some time
in advance, don't you agree?

Michel.

---[ Posted Jan 21 2001 ] -------------------------------------------
Multi6 folk:

The following text is from the multi 6 charter:
Goals and Milestones: (I added the year, 2001).
Apr 01 2001 Begin consideration of approaches and proposals that could be pursued. 
Aug 01 2001 Evaluate approaches and select those to be worked on. 
Sep 01 2001 Submit requirements ID to IESG for publication as Informational RFC. 
Sep 01 2001 Submit 'how multihoming is done today' ID to IESG for publication as Informational RFC. 
Sep 01 2001 Evaluate progress, recharter or shutdown

We are late.
Considering and evaluating approaches and select those to be worked on should have been done after London.

Does anyone think that there is a reason to delay furthermore:

1. The WG last call for the requirements documents as discussed in SLC. I believe that Joe is ready to modify the draft to include the edits. I thank the people that have taken time to participate and renew the call to send comments/text to complement v1.05 of the edits I posted earlier today.

2. The submission for the requirements documents as Informational RFC BEFORE Minneapolis.

3. The selection of approaches/proposals to become WG working documents as mentionned in the WG charter.
I nominate:
draft-huitema-multi6-hosts-00.txt
to become a WG working document.

4. The re-chartering of the WG; a text could be produced for Minneapolis and proposed to vote by the floor.

5. The discussion of proposal-specific issues in Minneapolis, as mentionned in the new charter to be. This implies a WG meeting in Minneapolis, and I think we need a two-hour one. I hope that we can collectively have a more productive meeting than we had in SLC. This also implies that the proposal selection MUST be done before the deadline to give authors a chance to submit their latest and greatest and prepare their slides. The deadline is March 1, 2002; it is in six weeks which is not a lot of time.

Comments welcomed, as usual.

Michel.

---

From: [email-masked] (Sean Doran)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:31:21 +0000 (GMT)

Michel -

| There as been no opposition to that text and repeated support for parts
| of it, at least issuing the WG last call and possibly re-chartering.

There is little point in discussing a rechartering when the
items in the present charter are as yet incomplete.

These items can be completed in email right here on this list,
as you have ably demonstrated with your accumulation of suggested
changes.  Thank you.  

Thomas and I shortly will be discussing ways to progress the
documents, and how to get the proposed changes edited into the draft.

| I suppose that I could take care of the agenda, and that between Randy,
| Christian and myslef we could come with a pre-release of the re-charter.
| Is that what you want us to do?

No.   My comment was maybe too terse: there is as yet no reason
to schedule a live meeting in Minneapolis, since as of now there
is no known potential agenda item, short of discussing your suggested
changes.  Since those discussions are happening on the list,
there is therefore no point (that I see) in having a live meeting,
since there is no practical way I know of to make it (to use your
words) "more productive" than the last meeting.

I hope that is clearer.   

If you disagree, or need further clarification, please let me and
Thomas know, here on the list, or directly.

	Sean.

---

From: [email-masked] (Sean Doran)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 19:32:58 +0000 (GMT)

Michel Py writes:

| Just curious, How many YEARS behind schedule do you plan
| on being? Today's date is February 4, 2002.

How quickly can you complete the document?

Remember: it is unpaid volunteer labour from writers that
produces documents.  NO ONE in this working group is being
paid to take "why are you so late with your deliverables?" catcalls.

Try to contain your impatience, unless you consider the document
ready for WG last call and handover to the IESG.

	Sean.