RE: No Minneapolis Meeting

I think this is most unfortunate.
There has been list discussion on definitions - an absolutely
essential start. We need to come to closure on this.

There are also large number of very perplexing questions of
balancing utility and privacy that have not progressed.
We need to make progress, and I think face-to-face is a good
way to do that. I think a meeting is in order.

If there is no meeting, then I think we should arrange a
bar-bof.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randall Gellens [mailto:rg+ietf@qualcomm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 5:07 PM
> To: geopriv@mail.apps.ietf.org
> Cc: Allison Mankin
> Subject: No Minneapolis Meeting
>
>
> Because there hasn't been any discussion on the list of the several
> drafts published so far, I don't see much point in meeting in
> Minneapolis.
>
> IETF working group meetings are a scarce and expensive resource, and
> should only be used to help make forward progress, typically to
> discuss issues that have been raised on the list where a face-to-face
> meeting can be helpful.
>
> I apologize for the state of the group, and will work harder to help
> us make progress.
>
> --Randy
>
Received on Tue Mar 5 17:14:54 2002