Subject: [dane] DANE WG Meeting at IETF-81

From: Ondřej Surý <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 17:51:34 +0200

Colleagues,

we (the chairs) have requested a meeting slot at IETF-81 in Quebec.

We thought that since there are lot of people who just come to meeting
in person and not read the mailing list, we should do a summary on use
cases and on the progress of the protocol we might have.

Any thoughts on that or any requests for timeslots?

O.
-- 
 Ondřej Surý
 vedoucí výzkumu/Head of R&D department
 -------------------------------------------
 CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o.    --    Laboratoře CZ.NIC
 Americka 23, 120 00 Praha 2, Czech Republic
 mailto:[email-masked]    http://nic.cz/
 tel:+420.222745110       fax:+420.222745112
 -------------------------------------------

---

From: "Richard L. Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:54:53 -0400

I would be glad to provide an overview of the requirements document if you think that would be helpful.
--Richard

---

From: Ondřej Surý <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 17:57:44 +0200

Richard,

thank you very much.  I think that would be very useful.  I see two
benefits in doing that.  One is a way of saying: "Yes, we did what you
have asked us.").  And the second is providing overview to a people who
don't follow mailing list, but attend WG meetings (and I think we saw
there were such people in the room in Prague).

O.

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:27:25 -0700

> there were such people in the room in Prague).

I thought that dane has had plenty of activity on its list, though I haven't 
tracked unresolved issues.  Perhaps starting with a list of those issues will 
point to a good use of the meeting time?

Working group meeting time is extremely scarce.  Roughly 6 hours a year, at 
most.  The time is rather explicitly not meant for tutorials.

Spending time reviewing material that can be read outside the group mostly 
indicates that the group has not been making much progress on the mailing list.

If it were making more progress on the mailing list, it would have developed a 
set of unresolved issues that would benefit from the considerable efficiencies 
of face-to-face discussion during that scarce time.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Ondřej Surý <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:35:37 +0200

On 13.6.2011 18:27, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> thank you very much.  I think that would be very useful.  I see
>> two benefits in doing that.  One is a way of saying: "Yes, we did
>> what you have asked us.").  And the second is providing overview to
>> a people who don't follow mailing list, but attend WG meetings (and
>> I think we saw there were such people in the room in Prague).
> 
> 
> I thought that dane has had plenty of activity on its list, though I 
> haven't tracked unresolved issues.  Perhaps starting with a list of 
> those issues will point to a good use of the meeting time?

That's a good point.  We had these lists of issues before and my guess
would be that we will have them in Quebec as well.  I'll also try to
pick one or two biggies to spend more time on them.

> Working group meeting time is extremely scarce.  Roughly 6 hours a
> year, at most.  The time is rather explicitly not meant for
> tutorials.

Generally I would agree, but I want to explicitly prevent what had
happened in Prague, when we already had a progress, and suddenly we were
sent back by people in the room.  So I think that spending few minutes
on "here what we have done" won't hurt and will help.

> Spending time reviewing material that can be read outside the group 
> mostly indicates that the group has not been making much progress on
> the mailing list.
>
> If it were making more progress on the mailing list, it would have 
> developed a set of unresolved issues that would benefit from the 
> considerable efficiencies of face-to-face discussion during that
> scarce time.

Again a good point, so maybe everybody could go and review our list of
open issues: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dane/trac/report/1 and tell us
what they feel it is missing based on last (-07) version of the protocol
draft: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dane/draft-ietf-dane-protocol/

O.