AW: No Minneapolis Meeting

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

Sounds good. Decisions can only be made on the maillist anyway.
If we have some proposals we can post them to the maillist
together with the minutes.

CU all. Mehmet

>
>
> 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 Fri Mar 15 14:39:54 2002