Subject: [DNSOP] Preliminary slot assignment for IETF 84

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 11:22:24 +0200

FYI,

we have been assigned, as requested, a one hour slot for the DNSOP WG
meeting in Vancouver. The agenda <http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/84/>
currently sees us on Thursday, 1730-1830:

	APP   iri              Internationalized Resource Identifiers
	INT   lwig             Light-Weight Implementation Guidance 
	INT   trill            Transparent Interconnection of Lots
	OPS   bmwg             Benchmarking Methodology             
	OPS   dnsop            Domain Name System Operations        
	RAI   atoca            Authority-to-Citizen Alert           
	RAI   avtext           Audio/Video Transport Extensions     
	TSV   behave           Behavior Engineering for Hindrance Avoidance

"behave" is on our list of conflicts to avoid, but unless we hear
strong arguments we'd rather not ask for a rescheduling not to produce
worse overlaps.

That said, we would like to encourage discussion of new and emerging topics
on this list in the spirit of ...

> Topics should ideally have been the subject of promising discussion on
> the WG list, so if you have any drafts you are thinking of submitting
> and would like discussed at the meeting, can you please get them in
> and announce them to the list as soon as possible.

> Although the draft WG agendas are not due until 18 July, the final
> IETF agenda will be published on 6 July.  We would therefore like
> suggestions for agenda items by end 4 July the latest: if there is no
> interest in a meeting, we will cancel the meeting request.

-Peter & Stephen

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 08:26:08 -0700

>> interest in a meeting, we will cancel the meeting request.

There are only three WG drafts:

dnssec-dps-framwork, which has already been sent to the IESG
repsize, which is in some weird state with the AD writing up ballot text
rfc4641bis, which has WG consensus and is waiting for a writeup

Unless someone is wanting the WG to consider a new, non-WG draft, what is the purpose of meeting?

--Paul Hoffman