To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, "'provreg List'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
"James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>
Date:
Sun, 4 Feb 2001 20:08:51 +0800
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Interim Meeting
> Nothing is ever decided with finality at face-to-face IETF meetings -- > consensus decisions are made using mailing lists like this one. Those of us > who have asked for an interim meeting want to get down to critical review of > the EPP proposals, and to that end I think we need to do the following > between now and 21+ February: 20th Feb is an interim meeting, not IETF meeting. Interim meetings for WG are not encouraged but not against the rules if approved by the ADs. > 1. We come to some semblance of closure on the requirements. The updated > draft was posted almost two weeks ago, and I haven't seen any discussion > since. Does that mean I got it right this time? ;-) I think the right answer is people are still coming to terms with this WG and trying to understand the consequences. It would be too early to say that you got it right. RIPE have done a good job promoting this in Amsterdam to the European NICs. There would be a APRICOT meeting end of Feb where Asia NICs would usually attend. I will try do some "awareness promotion" there so we could get Asia NICs to join the work here. Their feedback is equally important. Yes, this means I wont be able to attend to interim meeting because of APRICOT. Guess this means one less 'trouble-maker' there. How lucky :-) ps: The current requirements probably not suitable for them but I shall leave it to them to explain why. pss: There are other kind of registries who would be interested in this work. They should be appropriately be informed. IP, keywords and URN comes to mind immediately. And probably ENUM/E164, if ITU could get their head around to understand it. -James Seng