Subject: Disman in Yokohama

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:08:03 -0700 (PDT)

Hi -

I have requested a meeting slot in Yokohama.  I was hoping
that we'd be able to avoid holding a meeting, but it's clear
from the slow pace on the mailing list that we'll need to
use our face-to-face time to finish off our work items.

Preliminary agenda:

    1. administratsiya
    2. finishing the active alarm document
    3. finishing the alarm report control document
    4. wrap-up

Expected output: editors will know exactly what needs to
be done so we can issue updated i-ds and do a final WG last
call.

Editors: there is little time remaining for i-d submission.
I'd appreciate it if you could ensure that current consensus
i-ds will be available well before the meeting.

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
 [email-masked]  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 07:24:45 -0400

hi

Sure, we were planning on issuing a new version of the alarm MIB
before the cut-off date. The only open issue that hasn't 
been reposted to try and close it off is #alarm 40, which
is the one that relates to trying to get the resource ID
from the varbinds. I can post that today and we should then
be able to get a rough consensus. 

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 5:08 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Disman in Yokohama

Hi -

Preliminary agenda:

    1. administratsiya

---

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 15:38:18 -0700 (PDT)

Hi -

> From: "Elias Procopio Duarte Jr." <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: Disman in Yokohama
> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 18:47:23 -0300 (BRT)
> Cc: "'Randy Presuhn'" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
...
> Please, take a look at the document! We are sure there is a contribution
> there, but we need your interest and feedback. If there is interest, we
> would like to ask Randy if there could possibly be a little slot for
> discussion in Yokohama...
...

Thanks for the contribution.  Discussion on this mailing list
is appropriate and encouraged.  Our priority for Yokohama
must be finishing off our current work items.  Loa Andersson
put it well:

   It is not the purpose of a WG session to have presentation
   of the content of a document.  It is assumed that all
   attendees will have read the drafts in advance of the
   meeting.

   For documents that are work-in-progress, the presentation
   should cover issues resolved since the last draft followed
   by open issues and controversial topics with the intent
   to reach a resolution of said issues and topics.

   For new work items, the presentation should focus on what
   the problems is and why it is necessary for the work group
   to address it.  Further it should be either shown how it
   falls within the existing charter or why and how the charter
   should be extended to encompass it....

In short, meeting time is for the resolution of issues that
we haven't brought to closure on the mailing list.