Subject: [Hubmib] Next Steps

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:52:01 +0200

Bert Wijnen, our AD and WG advisor informed me that the IESG approved the WG
re-chartering, as required in the Minneapolis meeting. The change is not yet
in the WG Web page, but it is supposed to show-up in the next few days.

We need to plan our next steps. 

1.Editors - I would propose that the editors organize themselves and start
working on the Internet-Drafts.
According to the MPLS (Minneapolis!) WG minutes, the list of volunteers
includes:

       Tom Rutt <[email-masked]> - will work on 802.3ae
       Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
       K.C. Norseth  <[email-masked]>
       John Flick <[email-masked]>
       Avi Berger <[email-masked]> - specific interest in 802.3af
       Mike Ayers <[email-masked]> - specific interest in 802.3ae

If there are other volunteers I would request that they send me an e-mail.
If for some reasons any of the current editors is obliged to pedal back, I
would also appreciate a message on this respect. I would propose that we
organize an editors call in the next couple of weeks in order to discuss
logistics.

2. Internet-Drafts - The Charter leaves us the rest of the month to decide
on the structure of the new documents, and the month of June to issue the
first round of WG I-Ds. Proposals about the documents structure can be sent
to the list, and will be discussed by the editors.

3. Implementation Reports - I will write a questionnaire for implementation
report of the documents currently on the standards track. As we did in the
past, I would like to call for a volunteer to gather the implementation
reports, and do the arithmetic of the responses. It would be preferable for
this volunteer to be out of the Ethernet vendors community. We will ensure
anonymity of responses, but in case the WG intents to request advancement of
the documents on the standards track I will have to document at least two
interoperable implementations. Of course, this will be done only with the
consent of the respective vendors.

4. Meeting in London - I propose to ask for one two hours meeting slot at
the London IETF. A second meeting was proposed to be hold together with the
AToM MIB, specifically for discussions of the SONET layer objects - we need
to determine the duration of this second slot. Please make plans and
arrangements to attend, and also let me know if you have other WG meetings
that you must attend, and we should avoid conflicting scheduling.

Regards,

Dan

_______________________________________________
Hubmib mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hubmib