RE: No Minneapolis Meeting

Behcet is of course correct, as is Andrew. So, in the absence of a WG
meeting, any geopriv discussions will be informal, and will at best lead to
some ideas/documents being brought back the WG. That being said, I'm on
board for talking informally as Jorge suggested:

>Perhaps the easiest, is to meet Tuesday 1415-1515 in
>Salon D, as it was planned....

See you then. John

At 04:43 PM 3/14/02 -0700, Zmolek, Andrew (Andrew) wrote:
> > Wait a minute at IETF it is not the members who convene the
> > meetings and make the agenda, it is the IETF, WG chairs who
> > do this.
>
>This has been pointed out ad nauseum already. That's one reason why this
>is an informal BoF, not a working group meeting. It's not binding on the
>working group in any way and is no different than any other similar
>discussion among interested parties within a working group. If it bothers
>you that a few working group members might want to get together to talk
>about some relevant topics, then I imagine this will be the least of your
>worries at Minneapolis.
>
> > Next I have a question to Andrew, do you wish your draft
> > draft-zmolek-enum to be considered at geopriv?
>
>Hmmm...the draft itself is a bit specific to enum as written--it doesn't
>address geopriv directly. However, the concepts surrounding the use of
>service resolution services (for presence or otherwise) present a
>reasonable approach to solving the geopriv problem. Trouble is, even with
>a draft targeted to geopriv, this approach is clearly out of charter due
>to the severe constraints placed on the geopriv solution (namely, solving
>the privacy issue at the transport layer).
>
>Are you asking this question because you want to hear more about this
>draft with respect to geopriv, or are you trying to find out if my
>motivation for meeting is somehow tied to finding an audience for this
>draft? If there is interest in the former, I'd like to hear about it. But
>I suspect you're asking the latter question, in which case let me make it
>clear that I am more interested in having a good discussion about solving
>the fundamental problems than pushing any particular viewpoint or draft.
>While it is unfortunate that the WG won't be discussing them, there's no
>reason the rest of us need to wait around for an excuse for a good
>technical discussion.
>
>--Andy Zmolek
> Technology & Standards Engineer
> CTO Standards
> Avaya Inc.
>
> zmolek@avaya.com
> +1 720 444 4001
Received on Thu Mar 14 23:20:23 2002