Subject: Re: [netlmm] IETF-70 Agenda

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:27:21 -0800 (PST)

Raj, the agenda is probably OK.
My point was that the authors submit their drafts to netlmm thinking that it is the best place while another WG could be a better place?
That's the reason I asked (in view of the fact that netlmm has a very high number of extension drafts) the chairs should give some indication hopefully helpful indication to the WG.

Regards,

Behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
To: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>; "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>; Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>; Jonne Soininen <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 1:34:28 PM
Subject: Re: [netlmm] IETF-70 Agenda

Re: [netlmm] IETF-70 Agenda

As Vidya indicated, the chairs are not deciding what needs to be done in terms of new work items.

The WG needs to do that. And I do agree with Vidya, that it is only fair to people to at least get a chance to present their proposal. Further discussion and acceptance etc. can happen subsequently.

Given the 5 min window, the presenters need to highlight the issue being addressed and its relevance to Netlmm.

-Raj

On 11/28/07 1:26 PM, "ext Behcet Sarikaya" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Dear Chairs,

  I second Vijay.

It is true that there are not many email discussions unlike in previous months, just curious why 

  IMHO, the chairs should summarize/classify all the documents submitted for extensions and express possible future work in each area at their introduction to RECHARTERING DISCUSSION KICKOFF 

agenda item in Vancouver.

Best,

Behcet

----- Original Message ----

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>

To: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>; Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo) <[email-masked]>

Cc: [email-masked]

Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:52:59 PM

Subject: RE: [netlmm] IETF-70 Agenda

Hi Vijay,

With most of the documents not having been discussed on the mailing

list, it is not possible to guage the relative importance of topics or

what not.  It is not about what we as chairs think is important, it is

about what the WG thinks is important and we haven't had that

discussion.  So, it would be wrong to do what you propose at this stage.

The 5 min slots are really just for introducing the documents.  The

actual discussions should be taken to the mailing list.  Ideally, at the

IETF, only documents/topics that have been discussed on the mailing list

are discussed further at the meetings, but, we have a case here where

the WG spent most of its time on the actual WG document discussions

(which is good by itself).  It also does not make much of a sense to

have an extended rechartering discussion with no discussion of various

topics on the list prior to that.  Hence, we decided to provide time for

all the authors to introduce their documents and topics. 

Also, everyone should note that if we run out of time, it is possible

that not all the documents listed on the agenda are presented.  That is

the reasoning behind the ordering we chose as well. 

Thanks,

Vidya

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:[email-masked]] 

> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 10:32 AM

> To: Narayanan, Vidya; Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)

> Cc: [email-masked]

> Subject: Re: [netlmm] IETF-70 Agenda

> Hi Vidya, Jonne,

> These 5 min slots don't make sense to me. It is not 

> sufficient to present a problem and have some discussion on 

> that. How can we determine if the WG should address a 

> particular problem in

> 5 minutes? Of course ideally we could do this on the mailing list.

> IMHO, the chairs should determine what is more important and 

> what needs to be addressed soon, allocate more time for those 

> and drop other presentations.

> Vijay

> Narayanan, Vidya wrote:

> > All,

> > We have uploaded the final agenda at

> > http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/agenda/netlmm.txt.  

> A couple of 

> > notes about the agenda - we have received way too many requests for 

> > presentations, as you can see from the list.  We have tried to 

> > accommodate the requests, although, we had to reduce the amount of 

> > time to most of the new drafts to just 5 minutes.  We have 

> also tried 

> > to order the presentations with the following criteria - WG drafts, 

> > non-WG drafts that have had discussions on the list, new problem 

> > statements, other new drafts.

> > We would like to spend the last half an hour of the meeting 

> time kick 

> > starting the rechartering discussions and next steps.  So, 

> there will 

> > be a hard cutoff on the presentations at 1430 to accommodate that.   

> > Please adhere to your time limit on the presentations.

> > Also, to minimize computer swap times, we request that all 

> > presentations be sent to the chairs by 6pm Vancouver time, Sunday, 

> > 12/2.  Please note that it will not be feasible to accommodate 

> > exceptions to this, given the very tight agenda.

> > Please let us know if there are any corrections/comments on 

> the agenda. 

> > Thanks,

> > Jonne and Vidya

> > _______________________________________________

> > netlmm mailing list

> > [email-masked]

> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

_______________________________________________

netlmm mailing list

[email-masked]

https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

_______________________________________________

netlmm mailing list

[email-masked]

https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm