Subject: [Ietf-not43] Next steps

From: [email-masked] (Ted Hardie)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:09:53 -0800 (PST)

The next items on our milestones are protocol & required
schema IDs.  At the moment we have LDAP and IRIS documents 
(draft-ietf-crisp-lw-* and draft-ietf-crisp-iris-*, respectively).
My take on moving forward from here is that we need to construct
evaluations of those protocols, matching the requirements
we've agreed on to their capabilities and limitations.  At
the meeting in Atlanta, I'd like to discuss how to go about that
task, as well as get a brief overview to any changes to the
proposals which may have come in since Yokohama.  Review of
the proposals before Atlanta will seriously improve our ability
to make progress, so I urge you to read the drafts rather
than relying on the presentations.
	Below is a proposed agenda; early bashing welcome.
				regards,
					Ted Hardie

Cross Registry Information Service Protocol

1) Agenda Bash, 5 mins (Chair) 
2) Milestone & Charter Review, 10 mins (Chair)
3) Discussion of evaluation process, 60 mins (Chair)
4) IRIS Diffs, 20 mins (Doc Author)
5) LW Diffs, 20 mins (Doc Author?)

---

From: [email-masked] (Andrew Newton)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 18:12:39 -0500

> 3) Discussion of evaluation process, 60 mins (Chair)

I'd prefer these two before #3.  A little knowledge of the differences 
between versions may also give insight to the evaluation process.

> 5) LW Diffs, 20 mins (Doc Author?) 

-andy

---

From: [email-masked] (Eric A. Hall)
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 17:37:26 -0600

> 5) LW Diffs, 20 mins (Doc Author?) 

I plan on attending (4 hour drive from here), and will be glad to present
on the subject.

Note that the LW drafts will be undergoing a significant overhaul over the
next few weeks. I had planned on getting the updates submitted before the
cutoff date but that is impossible at this point.

I've never attended or presented at an IETF before. What's the policy
here? My understanding is that these slots are not substitutes for the
drafts, but what are they if not that?

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

---

From: [email-masked] (Ted Hardie)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 16:42:58 -0800 (PST)

I'm actually hoping to focus that discussion on the process itself (do
we want to write seperate eval drafts, a combo eval draft, maintain an
"issues list" matrix, etc.), rather than focusing on the proposals.
I initially put it first in order to help reinforce the idea that
this was about the process.  I can do that in any order, of course,
and there are elements of draft structure (the splitting of the
proposals into multiple documents, e.g) that do relate here.

Thoughts from other working group members here?
					regards,
						Ted Hardie

---

From: [email-masked] (Ted Hardie)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 16:47:35 -0800 (PST)

I'm glad that you'll be able to attend, and I look forward to meeting
you in person.  Given that you plan to update the drafts, a
presentation on any substantive changes in the proposals is fine, but
it need not be in the format of a draft or with the specificity of a
draft.

In a large part, these slots are ways to get high-bandwidth time on a
proposal.  If there are specific points which you feel it is critical
to understand to evaluate the drafts, this is a time to make them (the
presentation part will be shared with the mailing list).  This
is also an opportunity for those present to share a discussion in
real time.

All decisions remain, however, with the working group as expressed in
mailing list discussion.
				regards,
					Ted Hardie

> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-not43 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://lists.verisignlabs.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43
>

---

From: [email-masked] (Andrew Newton)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 20:59:13 -0500

Well, I'm not stuck on it... and you raise a valid point.  So either way is 
fine by me.

---

From: [email-masked] (Ted Hardie)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 13:25:12 -0800 (PST)

It's clear from the current discussion on the list that next steps
will need to include re-issuing the requirements draft and going
through a new working group last call.  One consequence of that will
be re-stating our milestones to reflect reality.  I'll incorporate a
discussion of that in the "Milestone and Charter Review" section
below.

Given that we really need to have a discussion of how to go through
the evaluation process, I'm proposing to shift the agenda to:

CRISP Working Group, IETF 55

Agenda Bash, 5 mins 
Evaluation Process, 60 mins
IRIS Diffs, 20 mins
LW Diffs, 20 mins
Milestone & Charter Review, 10 mins
Discussion of Requirements doc changes, 30 minutes.

This ordering is to ensure that we get meeting time on the process
issues when we have high bandwidth time.  All discussion is, of
course, subject to the decision of the working group as expressed on
the list.

Any further immediate bashing should be sent to me as soon as
possible, so I can get the WG agenda onto the IETF web site
in time.
			Ted Hardie

> 
> Well, I'm not stuck on it... and you raise a valid point.  So either way > is 
> fine by me.
> 
> > > I'd prefer these two before #3.  A little knowledge of the difference> s