Subject: again about interim

From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 09:43:28 +0200

I raised the issue of a Netconf WG interim meeting in the IESG
teleconference yesterday. The request for an interim immediately after
the Montreal meeting was not received very sympathetically, to say it
mildly. It looks like the rules allow indeed for an interim meeting
immediately after the IETF meeting (not before), but this is perceived
rather as a loophole in the rules. The IESG prefers the participants in
an IETF meeting to be able to participate in more activities during the
IETF week, and if an interim is needed it rather be a real interim
during the three-four months between the IETF meetings. Also, the WG
will need to take care of the logistics, find a meeting place, pay for
the rooms, etc. The IETF may be able to find a meeting room on Friday
afternoon, but will not pay for Saturday or Sunday meeting rooms. It's
not a definite no, and if you want it and find the good arguments
meeting on Fri-Sat-Sun after the IETF may still be approved, as it fits
in the rules. Yet, you will need to find ways to fund it, as for any
interim. 
 
So, you may want to consider again options for an interim in May or
beginning of June. You also may ask for two meetings during the Montreal
session. Or you may insist for the interim-stuck-to-Montreal, and may
get it. 
 
The more important thing in my opinion is to continue the good
discussions happening on the list after Dallas, channel them into
contributions and try to work towards WG consensus. 
 
Dan

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 12:34:50 +0200

Dan,

I have to say that thus far I find arguments both for and against an
interim meeting unconvincing.  In my experience, the best use of an
interim is when you have clear questions to discuss - even if they're
big ones, whether to reuse SYSLOG or whether to use the same transport
connection or what if any data model should be used.  Having
presentations on the options is fair game, but there should be drafts
associated with those presentations so people can prepare.  We have none
of that yet but perhaps the lists that Sharon and Juergen are making
will crystallize soon...

On the other hand, I am flummoxed by the IESG's response.  If a WG has
those questions above, then if the chairs predict they'll need lots more
time to answer those questions than can be afforded during an IETF, why
should anybody insist on YET ANOTHER FLIGHT?  Some people must really
hate where they live.

Eliot

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 05:56:25 -0800

Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> IETF week, and if an interim is needed it rather be a real 
> interim during the three-four months between the IETF meetings. Also, 
> the WG will need to take care of the logistics, find a meeting place, 
> pay for the rooms, etc. The IETF may be able to find a meeting room on 
> Friday afternoon, but will not pay for Saturday or Sunday meeting rooms. 
> It's not a definite no, and if you want it and find the good arguments 

Here is the problem.
There was < 10% of the WG prepared to work in Dallas.
Except for the authors and co-chairs, there are about
2 or 3 people that can make it to an interim in Europe.

This just isn't worth it unless 10+ clueful people besides
the authors and chairs attend.  Especially since travel
is so expensive, and the issues deadlocking the WG are so big
and complex.

I really find it puzzling how an interim on Friday will
prevent people from "cross-area participation" on M-Th.
I find it disturbing that the IESG prioritizes cross
participation over progress.

> Dan

Andy

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 10:12:35 -0800

> of that yet but perhaps the lists that Sharon and Juergen are making

I have asked Phil if he would consider writing a draft
on the endless RPC approach.  That means the floor is
open to anyone who wants to take the time to write a
draft on "notifications in netconf".

Speaking of big questions...

Dave H. and I are particularly concerned about this
architecture thing.  There doesn't seem to be any.
How does this all fit with our RPC-based configuration
datastore manipulation protocol?  What is the extensible
framework that allows the maximum standards features
for interoperability, plus a content-independent data
payload capability?  What are the components needed
immediately (vs. phased in) to deploy a robust, secure,
efficient, and interoperable notification mechanism?

> should anybody insist on YET ANOTHER FLIGHT?  Some people must really

Well, I could see if it was going to cost the IETF
extra money (it won't) or be an extra burden on the AD
who has a lot of meetings during IETF week
(who said it was okay with him).  We can have our
regular slideware 2-hour meeting on Friday like normal,
take a lunch break, go to a different room, and continue
working (or go home if you don't want to stay).

It's not just a flight.
It's the time, the travel, and the hotel costs to go
somewhere else, in addition to the regular IETF travel costs.

It's also the reality that we will get many more participants
in Montreal than any random city anybody has named, because
they are already there for all the other WGs on M-Th they
need to attend.  We WANT participation right?  (Randy Bush
once joked I should hold my RMONMIB interim in Anchorage
in January so nobody will attend and we will make decisions
faster. ;-)

Andy