Subject: [Ieprep] Atlanta ieprep Agenda

From: "King, Kimberly S." <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 11:12:32 -0500

The ieprep WG is scheduled to meet Monday, November 18 from 1530-1730.  

Proposed ieprep Agenda

agenda bashing                                           5 minutes
Chairs

The ISP backbone of today		 		20 minutes
Discussion on deployed networks followed by question/answer period. 
Ran Atkinson

draft-ietf-ieprep-sip-reqs-01.txt		  	25 minutes
Document is in WG last-call.  The WG should discuss any remaining issues.
Henning Schulzrinne

draft-ietf-ieprep-requirements-01.txt		25 minutes
Requirements will be discussed one by one. 
Hal Folts

draft-ietf-ieprep-framework-02.txt			10 minutes      
Clarification on any outstanding issues.
Ken Carlberg

Accounting		   	             			10 minutes
Should Accounting be an ieprep requirement?
Mike Pierce 

draft-polk-ieprep-scenarios-01.txt 	 		5 minutes
Document is in WG last-call. The WG should discuss any remaining issues.
James Polk

Total								100 minutes

It is assumed that the WG has read the documents in preparation for the
meeting.  
 
_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 14:19:02 -0500

On Friday, Nov 8, 2002, at 11:12 America/Montreal, King, Kimberly S. 
> Requirements will be discussed one by one.

Seems to me like there needs to be a major document spin, based on 
existing
list feedback, before we waste another 25 minutes discussing an old 
document
that clearly needs a major editing pass before it goes anyplace.  And I 
do
NOT plan to repeat all my comments to date at the meeting (sound of 
cheers
in the background) because I expect them to be <#include list-feedback>
included by reference.

> Clarification on any outstanding issues.

Not keen about discussing this absent a document spin either,
since it also quite clearly needs major editing, but at least
we will only waste 10 minutes not 25.

> Document is in WG last-call. The WG should discuss any remaining 

Those seem reasonable.  It will probably help focus things a whole lot
if "accounting" is replaced by a much more precise term/definition.
Adding accounting to the overall Internet Architecture would represent
a huge change to the architecture so seems like a very bad idea.  I
hope/suspect something else is being proposed.  Clarity in what is
meant/intended/sought would be good.

Ran