RE: updated agenda

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

Ed,

We should also try to talk about the external hosts thread that has been on
the WG mailing list over the last few weeks.  It would seem to fit in the
same section as Rick's "last verified" proposal.

-Scott-

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward Lewis [mailto:edlewis@arin.net]
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 4:10 PM
> To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
> Cc: edlewis@arin.net; jaap@sidn.nl
> Subject: updated agenda
> 
> 
> In the past few days, we've done some re-working of the agenda, not 
> removing any topics from those we are expecting input, dropping folks 
> that we know won't be there, etc.  We've also done this from the 
> perspective of wanting to determine if we should think of shutting 
> down the WG in the near future.
> 
> That may sound drastic, but it is in line with the way the IETF 
> works.  WG's are not intended to be persistent, but are in place to 
> achieve certain goals.  (In case you are concerned about achieving 
> draft standard status, that can be done be convening another WG to do 
> that step.  It doesn't have to happen in the same WG that produces a 
> proposed standard.)
> 
> So, with that premise, here's an updated version of the agenda:
> 
> 1 Agenda bashing - 5 mins
> 
> 2 IESG issues with base, 30 m
> 
>      Listing of the comments
>        and
>      Addressing the issues
> 
>      Ed and Scott - what ever this takes, it is the main item
> 
> 2.5 Other issues with the base 10m
> 
>      Last-Verified
> 
>      Rick
> 
> 3 SOAP submission 20m or so
> 
>      Jon Peterson for Hong Liu
>      Group should ask: is this of general interest?  Is there need to
>      work towards an interoperable version of this?
> 
>      Even if the work is of good quality, it might not be 
> general enough
>      for us to work on it.  I don't want us to judge the quality - but
>      judge the appropriateness for the WG.
> 
> 4 SMTP submission 20m
> 
>      No presentation on the document is planned, but, once again,
>      does anyone to pick this up?  Besides passing interests, is
>      there multiple folks willing to commit to making this happen?
> 
> 5 Extension Guidelines Draft 10m ?
> 
>      I would like to have a real discussion as this is may be the last
>      work item we have and it should be easy to get this finished
> 
> 6 Discussion on the future of the WG
> 
>      To end the group we need to get the extension doc done, not admit
>      the new docs, and drop the interop milestone.  'Course - 
> we're not
>      advocating this, I am not stating that the new docs 
> won't be acceptable,
>      but we want to ask the question about closing the WG soon.
> 
>      We strongly want to impress on the group that there's 
> resistance to
>      the new documents, but we want to take a hard look at 
> whether these
>      will prolong the WG's life.  The last thing I want to have is a
>      languishing WG hanging around.
> 
>      Closing the WG doesn't mean that we shut down the mail list - so
>      comments from implementations can roll keep rolling in.
> 
> -- 
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
> ARIN Research Engineer
>