Re: They're already calling for 53rd IETF Meetings

[Daniel Manley <dmanley@tucows.com>]

Eric, I'm trying to find the reference you made to message on the 29th 
[of November?].  I've read messages from both you and Ed and don't see a 
mention of a single client.  Maybe I'm just missing it.  Can you send 
links to the specific message in archives or quote snippets?

Thanks,
Dan

Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:

>Ed,
>
>In my opinion, a time slot in Minneapolis would be time well spent.
>
>I sent some suggestions to the chairs prior to SLC, one is in-progress as
>we speak -- the data protection (aka "privacy") bits, between Scott and I. 
>
>Other dohickies I suggested were:
>
>	1. "moving out of the ICANN gTLD ghetto
>                + adding the "sponsoring entity" authorization mechanism
>                + archival logging in-band (see <push>)
>	2. technical bells-and-whistles
>                + symmetric event model (see <push>)
>		+ bulk (ftp) model
>                + restart and recovery work
>	3. some unspecified security "stuff"
>
>Scott's suggestion that we put an Open Source server out is a good idea,
>and there has been real off-list and on-list interest in that. This is a
>good subject for at least 15 minutes.
>
>Another subject that is "ripe" now is the question of one client. Please
>see Ed's note of the 29th, and my reply, also of the 29th. This is a good
>subject for at least another 15 minutes.
>
>I'm implementing, and I'll be happy to attempt interoperability testing
>with nearly anyone prior to or during the week of -53.
>
>So, IMO, at least an hour, two would be fine if implementors reports are
>tossed in.
>
>Eric
>wampumpeag, llc
>