RE: No Minneapolis Meeting

I fully agree with Brian. We are missing the progress which
is needed and we were hoping to achieve in Minneapolis.

To boost a goal-oriented discussion we should start the work
on the requirements WG item. IMO there is enough material
already available and we had sufficient discussion on terminology
and scenarios.

IMO a lot of WG members will welcome it if we can meet in
Minneapolis to discuss on a stable focus and the kick-off of
the requirements WG item work.

Regards,

Mehmet

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Rosen, Brian [mailto:Brian.Rosen@marconi.com]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. März 2002 23:14
> An: 'Randall Gellens'; geopriv@mail.apps.ietf.org
> Cc: Allison Mankin
> Betreff: 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 Wed Mar 6 10:14:17 2002