Subject: Minneapolis disman session(s)?

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 07:09:34 -0800 (PST)

Hi -

It's time for time-slot requests for the upcoming IETF meeting.

It sounds like it would make sense to meet for at least one session
in Minneapolis.  Are there any preferred days or conflicts to avoid?
Will we need an additional 1-hour or full-length session?

 -------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn           [email-masked]
 Voice: +1 408 546-1006  BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
 Fax:   +1 408 965-0359  2141 North First Street
 http://www.bmc.com/     San José, California 95131  USA
 -------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 -------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:07:49 +0100

>>>>> Randy Presuhn writes:

Randy> It's time for time-slot requests for the upcoming IETF meeting.

Randy> It sounds like it would make sense to meet for at least one
Randy> session in Minneapolis.  Are there any preferred days or
Randy> conflicts to avoid?  Will we need an additional 1-hour or
Randy> full-length session?

I think it only makes sense to meet in Minneapolis if we get a new
charter which includes the alarm MIB as a WG work item. I think a one
hour meeting slot may be too short to reach consensus on what an alarm
really is and how alarms should be modelled in MIBs.

Conflicts to avoid (as far as I am concerned):

    snmpv3, sming, snmpconf, aaa, ipng

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<[email-masked]>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>