Subject: [clue] Interim meeting minutes available

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:13:20 -0500

I have uploaded what I think is a complete set of minutes with a summary of
conclusions, action items and new issues:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2012/06/07/clue/minutes/minutes-interim-2012-clue-2.txt

Note, that minutes read a little better if you download the text file as
some funky characters appear when you browse it in the proceedings.

Please comment if you think there is something missing from the summary or
there is something  wrong with any of the detailed notes (keeping in mind
that they don't need to be perfect - we just need the context and any
highlights/conclusions).  I will try to dig up the recording and add a link
to so folks can to listen to it for clarifications.

Regards,
Mary.

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:47:11 +0300

Hi,

I looked at the interim meeting conclusions and I am not sure that the text
on appendix A reflect the discussion and if it is logical.

Conclusions:

------------

2) Remove appendices from framework. A.1 is out of scope.  A.2&A.3 are
related to A.1, thus out of scope.   A.4 and A.5 have been superseded by
individual drafts which capture the issues and solution options in more
detail. Any consensus around these proposals will be considered in terms of
additions/updates to the framework, as appropriate. 

Roni:  My understanding is that we decided to take out appendix A since
currently all topics in the appendix are not part of the framework. We can
review all in separate document but will also need to agree if the topic
should be in the framework or as an extension to the current work. I think
that from the user perspective ], which is what use case is about, there is
no difference between A.1 and A.4, the outcome for the user is a user
defined layout regardless of who creates the layout. Saying that we will
support A.4 and not A.1 say that we are addressing a specific solution.

I think that it is about time to ask what we think should be part of the
first version of the framework and not add features just because people
think it is a good idea. I am not saying the support for the use cases in
appendix A of the framework and in the switch use case draft are not
important. I am just wondering if we are not going to a long term
development of support for functionality that is an enhancement  to the
basic use cases as listed in the current WG use case draft.

Thanks

Roni

 

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Mary
Barnes
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:13 AM
To: CLUE
Subject: [clue] Interim meeting minutes available

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2012/06/07/clue/minutes/minutes-inte
rim-2012-clue-2.txt

Regards,

Mary.

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 12:31:12 -0500

I don't think the minutes are saying anything different than what you are
saying.  Although, I don't see A.1 and A.4 being quite the same.  We have
made no judgement as to whether A.4 is within scope.  We will decide that
based upon continued mailing list discussions.

We removed all the items from the appendix exactly because the item was
either already agreed to be out of scope (for now) OR we had not yet agreed
the item was out of scope AND there was an additional draft that was more
comprehensive, thus we no longer need the text in the framework document
appendix to track the issue - i.e., it adds no value.   There are no plans
to progress the individual docs separately.  They are just a scratchpad for
working through the issues.  Absolutely, we need to consider whether these
items are really something that is within scope for the current charter
(that's why the words "as appropriate").

As a chair, I fully agree with your point that we do need to start getting
pragmatic and get the work completed that provides basic interoperability.
 The challenge is ensuring that there is enough flexibility and
extensibility to allow some of the more advanced scenarios.

Thanks,
Mary.

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Roni Even <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi,****
>
> I looked at the interim meeting conclusions and I am not sure that the
> text on appendix A reflect the discussion and if it is logical.****
>
> ** **
>
> Conclusions:****
>
> ------------****
>
> ** **
>
> additions/updates to the framework, as appropriate. ****
>
> ** **
>
> support A.4 and not A.1 say that we are addressing a specific solution.***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> basic use cases as listed in the current WG use case draft.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks****
>
> Roni****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] *On Behalf
> Of *Mary Barnes
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:13 AM
> *To:* CLUE
> *Subject:* [clue] Interim meeting minutes available****
>
> ** **
>
> I have uploaded what I think is a complete set of minutes with a summary
> of conclusions, action items and new issues:****
>
>
> ****
> ** **
> some funky characters appear when you browse it in the proceedings. ****
>
> ** **
>
> to so folks can to listen to it for clarifications.****
>
> ** **
>
> Regards,****
>
> Mary. ****
>

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 00:07:42 +0300

Hi Mary,

I want to point out that according to ticket #6 A.1 is in scope of CLUE
according to the charter.

As for A.1 and A.4 can you explain to me the difference from the user
perspective.

Roni

From: Mary Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 8:31 PM
To: Roni Even
Cc: CLUE
Subject: Re: [clue] Interim meeting minutes available

As a chair, I fully agree with your point that we do need to start getting
pragmatic and get the work completed that provides basic interoperability.
The challenge is ensuring that there is enough flexibility and extensibility
to allow some of the more advanced scenarios.  

Thanks,

Mary. 

Hi,

Conclusions:

------------

 

Thanks

Roni

 

Regards,

Mary.