Subject: Minutes/slides from Salt Lake City meeting
From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 08:28:19 -0500
List-Id: <ietf-irnss.lists.elistx.com>

Hi.

For those of you who were interested in these and haven't found
them already, they are now online.  See
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/01dec/index.html and go to
section 2.1.15.  I had asked that the detailed agenda notes be
posted too, but it didn't happen.

I have received a half-dozen responses to my request for
specific agenda items.  None contained such items, although
there were several sets of thoughts useful to the general topic.
A suggestion was made that we take the minutes from last time,
identify areas of controversy, and base a BOF agenda on them.
Such areas cannot be clearly identified from the notes; my own
recollection is that, rather than having controversies, we still
have people talking past each other around the same general
topic.

I'm consulting with Harald and Patrik about what should be done
about a BOF, if anything.

    john

Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 17:17:35 -0800
From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: INTLOC, IRNSS, and Salt Lake City
To: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Cc: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]

John,

> I think the key question is what should be on that agenda.

There probably isn't any point in putting encodings, equivalence
classes, intermediate mappings or tables, and other puns for the
problem recently solved (incorrectly) in the IDN WG. 

So, those problems "in layer N" that don't resolve (pardon the pun)
uniquely down to the solution that unfortunate activity has proposed
"in layer 1" (or "0", I've lost count), aren't ab initio absurd.

There's lots of them, the label space semantics can be extended by
just a few (ASCII) characters, like blanks, and backspaces for that
matter, without meaningfully venturing outside a particular character
repitoire.

Just assume (as a hypothetical) that only some clueless few Asians
and "character mavens" will contribute (bother with) the IETF on i18n
issues. If the proposed activity isn't nuanced by ENOASIANS, fine.
If the proposed activity _assumes_ participation by Asians qua Asians,
on an i18n issue, an assumption check is now in order.

Eric

Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 21:20:09 -0500
From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: INTLOC, IRNSS, and Salt Lake City
To: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]

--On Thursday, 14 February, 2002 18:04 -0800 "Paul Hoffman /
IMC" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think it would be a Good Thing for IRNSS to meet, and to
> have a focused agenda posted two weeks before the meeting.
> Normally, I am not in favor of having face-to-face meetings
> regulated by someone with a whip who is not smiling, but I
> will strongly favor it again for IRNSS.

Paul,

I think the key question is what should be on that agenda.
Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, whip-wielding is
not an activity I find very pleasant and it is something that
I/we should be able to do much less of with a focused and
topical agenda.  But the SLS and "keywords" people ought to be
far enough along to propose their own agendas and BOFs (or WGs),
there hasn't been any significant on-list discussion, so, again,
what do you see as topics?  Or should we, instead, organize one
or more bar-bofs to talk about dns-search-03 and what we should
be doing next?

    john

Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 18:04:15 -0800
From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: INTLOC, IRNSS, and Salt Lake City
To: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]

I think it would be a Good Thing for IRNSS to meet, and to have a 
focused agenda posted two weeks before the meeting. Normally, I am 
not in favor of having face-to-face meetings regulated by someone 
with a whip who is not smiling, but I will strongly favor it again 
for IRNSS.

I see no reason for INTLOC to meet again. The sense of the last BOF 
was one of only mild interest from most of the participants.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 20:24:16 -0500
From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Subject: INTLOC, IRNSS, and Salt Lake City
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]

(apologies for duplication -- bad address in the first attempt)

Recipients of the INTLOC and IRNSS lists...

We have gotten several inquiries about additional BOFs or
sessions of other sorts, specifically at the Minneapolis IETF.
But there has been no technical discussion on either list since
the Salt Lake City sessions.  Some revised documents have been
posted or will be soon, but, while they contain additional
explanation or clarification, they don't represent fundamentally
new concepts.  We are willing to hold a session of one or the
other group, or both together, if people can suggest questions
to be addressed and what outcome they would expect to get.  So
this is a solicitation for such input if people want to meet.

The scheduling deadline is very near, so, if anyone does want a
session, he or she should speak up quickly, either on the lists
or by private note to us.

thanks,

John Klensin and Harald Alvestrand