Subject: Re: Dates for architecture workshop

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 10:33:52 -0700

On Sep 27, 2007, at 9:32 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:

>
> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>>  - The topic is intended to be Apps area common architecture (some  
>> such pieces which already exist include SASL, LDAP, URLs, MIME  
>> types).  Any topic should relate to more than one application.
>>  - We would like this to be a working meeting. We may break people  
>> out forcibly into twos or threes to actually write stuff (email,  
>> proposals, I-D text,  etc) but we'll also have some discussion as  
>> a big group.
>
>
> Lisa,
>
> I've re-read your note a few times and while I think I understand  
> the concept of "common architecture" I am not understanding what  
> you mean by "position papers".
>
> Can you clarify what sorts of architectural problems are motivating  
> the event, what sorts of issues you are looking to have addressed,  
> what sorts of follow-on actions you are seeking, etc.?

I'm hoping for community input on what sort of issues need to be  
addressed, rather than drive the agenda myself and end up with nobody  
doing the actual work :)

This may be obvious, but I think the reason for a special venue and  
the topic of *common* architecture is to get people talking who  
normally wouldn't talk because they focus on different applications.  
It would be a waste of that time for the email folks to go off and  
discuss 2821 continuation line syntax amongst themselves, if, as I  
hope, there are HTTP and LDAP and calendaring folks there too.

The definition of "Position paper" can be pretty loose.  The topic is  
something you think might be interesting for the group to discuss, so  
what information can best fit in four pages to prepare for the  
discussion?  It could be a discussion of a problem, of a solution, or  
comparison of solutions or approaches.

I can definitely say what sorts of follow-on actions I'm hoping for:  
new work in the form of actual new I-Ds or draft charters, progress  
on stalled cross-application work,  or even proposals to cease  
duplicative or unimportant work if that's appropriate.

Lisa

---

From: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 13:01:13 +0200

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]>
To: "John C Klensin" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Apps Discuss" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: Dates for architecture workshop

> I think that conflict is livable, and since the dates work well for  
> CalConnect people and for me and Chris, I'd like to nail those dates  
> down.  Please put Feb 11/12 on your calendar if you're interested in  
> participating.
> 
> We haven't nailed down all the details yet, but here's the rough idea:
> 

Like

 - XML as a protocol definition language
 - XML as a data definition (/information /model) language

Tom Petch

> proposals, I-D text,  etc) but we'll also have some discussion as a  
> big group.
>   - We would like participation to be open to people who aren't  
> already Apps 'insiders' so we do not plan to issue formal invitations  
> to a closed list of people.  However, in order to limit attendance a  
> little, we will ask for on-topic position papers, just a few pages,  
> in advance of the meeting, as a condition of participation.
>   - If you intend to participate, I'd appreciate an email any time to  
> get a rough headcount.
>   - The deadline for position papers is tentatively friday, Dec 14.   
> That gives the IETF week and one week after for people who want to  
> bounce ideas around for position papers.
>   - We'll circulate the position papers in January so that people can  
> read and comment in advance.  More homework!
>   - It will be in the Bay area.
>   - We are going to look for a host, but if there are a few expenses  
> not covered, we may ask for a few 100$ attendance fee.  If we need to  
> ask this we'll ask in advance of the actual meeting, but once we have  
> a better idea how many people and what meeting space we need to obtain.
> 
> Thanks,
> Lisa
> 
<snip>