Subject: RE: [idn] Proposed agenda v2.0 ietf-london

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 05:12:28 -0400

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Hoffman / IMC [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 1:29 AM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [idn] Proposed agenda v2.0 ietf-london
>
>
>At 8:50 AM -0400 8/7/01, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>>Hi,
>>  here is a first cut of the proposed agenda. The idea here is to 
>>leave room for concensus building.
>
>The first proposed agenda has a lot of valuable time spent giving 
>presentations about Internet Drafts. Although this has been common in 
>the IDN WG (and many other WGs) at past IETF meetings, it is probably 
>not a good use of the WG's time, given our limited meeting slot. 
>People at the meeting should have read the drafts before the meeting, 
>and the meeting should be used for discussing technical merits and 
>consensus building.
>
>Original proposal:
>
>>  agenda bashing, 1 min., Marc Blanchet
>>  wg update, 5 min., Marc Blanchet
>>  ACE encoding
>>   ACE comparison, 5 min., Yoshiro Yoneya
>>   Reordering, 5 min., Soobok Lee
>>   ACE concensus building (Choosing an ACE if we need one), 5 min.
>>  Matching
>>   Nameprep update, 5 min., Paul Hoffman
>>   TSconv, 5 min., Xiang Deng
>>   Hangulchar, 5 min., Soobok Lee
>>   Matching concensus building, 10 min.
>>  Protocol
>>   Protocol comparison, 10 min., Dave Crocker
>>   Protocol concensus building, 55 min.
>>  Conclusion and next steps, 10 min.
>
>Proposal without Internet Draft presentations:
>
>  agenda bashing, 1 min., Marc Blanchet
>  wg update, 5 min., Marc Blanchet
>  ACE encoding
>   ACE comparison, 5 min., Yoshiro Yoneya
>   ACE consensus building (Choosing an ACE if we need one), 10 min.
>  Matching
>   Matching consensus building, 20 min.
>  Protocol
>   Protocol comparison, 10 min., Dave Crocker
>   Protocol consensus building, 60 min.
>  Conclusion and next steps, 10 min.
>
>Do other folks at the London meeting agree with this proposed 
>agenda revision?

I support this change.  As Paul noted, we have quite a bit to talk about
around technical merits and consensus building and I'd prefer to ensure that
we cover all of the _really_ pressing issues.

<Scott/>