Subject: [cuss] F2F meeting in March IETF?

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:06:20 -0600

Folks: The cutoff date to request a meeting for the March 2013 IETF is
next week on Monday.

Enrico and I need to determine if a f2f meeting is desirable.

The mechanism draft is currently seeking solicitations for
clarification regarding the IANA policy, as described in [1].  That
appears to be the only outstanding issue on its way to publication
requested (it is currently in Publication Requested stage already).

Enrico and I will like to urge the WG members to respond to [1]; Paul
K. has posted his response.  A larger audience is sought to close
this issue.

Regarding the status of the ISDN-service draft, Celine had opened up a
discussion item starting at the thread in [2] in July 2012.  That
thread seemed to have culminated in November 9 2012.  So I suspect the
authors of this draft can release a new version that can be moved ahead.

As such, it seems we can close the open issues on the mailing list, and
furthermore, Enrico and I are hoping we can do this before the March
IETF, perhaps through the use of an interim meeting if the need arises.

As such, does the WG need a f2f meeting?  Please let us know well
before Monday.  While we can always reserve-and-release-if-not-needed,
I personally think that doing so is a disservice to the community as
anyone who has been a chair can attest to the swap-my-wg email storm
that ensures when the draft agenda is released by the secretariat.

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss/current/msg00451.html
[2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss/current/msg00429.html

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email-masked]
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 17:40:14 -0500

I don't think there is a need for a f2f meeting *unless* there is a 
decision to revisit the IANA policy and to debate the pros/cons. Even 
then we may not need one.

Note that in spite of my comment about the policy, I am not asking for 
it to be changed at this time.

	Thanks,
	Paul