RE: No Minneapolis Meeting

At 05:13 PM 3/5/2002 -0500, Rosen, Brian wrote:
>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.

I agree with the call for a meeting and a higher bandwidth discussion to solve
some fundamentals

>
>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
>>

*************************************
"People generally demand more respect for their own rights than they are
willing to allow for others"

James M. Polk
Consulting Engineer
Office of the CTO

Cisco Systems
2200 East President George Bush Turnpike
Richardson, TX 75082 USA
w) 972.813.5208
f) 972.813.5280
www.cisco.com
Received on Tue Mar 5 18:14:06 2002