Subject: updated agenda

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:09:37 -0500

In the past few days, we've done some re-working of the agenda, not 
removing any topics from those we are expecting input, dropping folks 
that we know won't be there, etc.  We've also done this from the 
perspective of wanting to determine if we should think of shutting 
down the WG in the near future.

That may sound drastic, but it is in line with the way the IETF 
works.  WG's are not intended to be persistent, but are in place to 
achieve certain goals.  (In case you are concerned about achieving 
draft standard status, that can be done be convening another WG to do 
that step.  It doesn't have to happen in the same WG that produces a 
proposed standard.)

So, with that premise, here's an updated version of the agenda:

1 Agenda bashing - 5 mins

2 IESG issues with base, 30 m

     Listing of the comments
       and
     Addressing the issues

     Ed and Scott - what ever this takes, it is the main item

2.5 Other issues with the base 10m

     Last-Verified

     Rick

3 SOAP submission 20m or so

     Jon Peterson for Hong Liu
     Group should ask: is this of general interest?  Is there need to
     work towards an interoperable version of this?

     Even if the work is of good quality, it might not be general enough
     for us to work on it.  I don't want us to judge the quality - but
     judge the appropriateness for the WG.

4 SMTP submission 20m

     No presentation on the document is planned, but, once again,
     does anyone to pick this up?  Besides passing interests, is
     there multiple folks willing to commit to making this happen?

5 Extension Guidelines Draft 10m ?

     I would like to have a real discussion as this is may be the last
     work item we have and it should be easy to get this finished

6 Discussion on the future of the WG

     To end the group we need to get the extension doc done, not admit
     the new docs, and drop the interop milestone.  'Course - we're not
     advocating this, I am not stating that the new docs won't be acceptable,
     but we want to ask the question about closing the WG soon.

     We strongly want to impress on the group that there's resistance to
     the new documents, but we want to take a hard look at whether these
     will prolong the WG's life.  The last thing I want to have is a
     languishing WG hanging around.

     Closing the WG doesn't mean that we shut down the mail list - so
     comments from implementations can roll keep rolling in.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 22:11:37 -0500

Ed,

We should also try to talk about the external hosts thread that has been on
the WG mailing list over the last few weeks.  It would seem to fit in the
same section as Rick's "last verified" proposal.

-Scott-

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward Lewis [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 4:10 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: updated agenda
> 
>