 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Alex, On 2009/10/28, at 6:14, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Thomas Heide Clausen a écrit :On Wed, October 28, 2009 5:52 am, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:Thomas Heide Clausen a écrit :Carlos, Ok, let's try this, then, to see how much of a hurry we're really in: o Jari, can we have our milestone moved another 5 years into the future?Thomas - can we have agenda requests for the meeting in advance? Or are you going to decide only the DT document gets presented - despite the discussion on the draft-bernardos?The working-group is on a tight schedule, and we have specific work to do. I therefore would suggest that we do not open up for any odd presentation -- we won't have time for that. However... There have been, as I count it, three documents discussed on the listrecently: the Baccelli/Townsley address model document, the Perkins/ Baccelli "link model" document and the Carlos/Ronald addressmodel document. The two latter have emerged in the discussions only recently, but appear to be useful for the WG to have presented. My *personal* suggestion would be to ask the authors of each of these three documents to present, and if they're willing to do so of course have those on the agenda.Thomas I agree with your personal suggestion - make now a request for agenda items.Your draft agenda is due this midnight - are you ready for it? Are yougoing to act under pressure - again? And please publish here the draft agenda tomorrow, thank you.
We've published the draft agenda. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09nov/agenda/autoconf.txtThe agenda is still tentative one,because we want to take further action/decision after we collect all the WG opinions (due is tomorrow). There is another deadline (11/2) for the final WG agenda. We will deliver you the final one before that date.
As for slides in advance, we always try to get them on-line before the WG sessions, but as there often is a lot of work ongoing and discussions happening between WG participants during the IETF week that is being reflected in the presentations, I'm not sure we can reasonably do much earlier than that.I agree mostly. Some groups manage to get the slides well in advance. Why not AUTOCONF? It is useful for people wondering whether attending or not, be it locally or remotely.
Agree, it is useful to have slides at the right time.However, AUTOCONF is currently running the adaption call. The chairs wait for all the WG opinions.
As soon as we will fix the agenda, we will solicit the slides to the presenters. You can ask presenters to upload the slide on time with certain pressure;-)
cheers, ryuji
AlexThomasI noticed there's a deadline this midnight for the draft agenda. This group never submitted agenda in advance, let alone the slides. Can we follow - not the procedure - but some widely used IETF manners in this WG too? Alex;) Thomas On Wed, October 28, 2009 5:26 am, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano wrote:Hi Thomas, On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 05:15 -0700, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote:On Wed, October 28, 2009 4:57 am, Jari Arkko wrote:Alex,YEs I believe it is unreasonable to adopt that single document when a competitor document exists and which is technically more inline with what I think.Also, duly note that the draft-bernardos-autoconf-addressing-model document did not exist and the chairs (and the WG) were not made aware that itwas under development, at the time of approval of draft-ietf- autoconf-...True, we have been working on this since last IETF meeting. Had we (the authors) known that we were about to adopt a document as WG draft, we would have submitted it earlier. As I mentioned in a previous e-mail, I think it'd be better to have a discussion on the content of both drafts before really deciding on which one should be taken as baseline, but this is my personal opinion. Sorry, but after 5 years working on this (and I've been contributing to the WG since the very beginning) I don't buy the "we are in a hurry" argument :-). Discussing both drafts in Hiroshima would not harm and may be help. Thanks, CarlosYour opinion is, however, noted. ThomasI am aware that you wanted to see the other document adopted instead. But note that I said "given the opinions in the group" and not any individual's opinion. We all know that there is no unanimous agreement about this, but I was curious if someone thought that the chairs had somehow missed that a large part of the group disagreed with the idea of adopting the DT document. Jari _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf_______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf-- Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano http://www.netcoms.net GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA 4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67_______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf_______________________________________________ Autoconf mailinglist Autoconf at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ autoconf_______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf