Subject: Seeking PILC meeting agenda items

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 14:31:07 -0400

It's time to put together the meeting agenda for our scheduled one
hour PILC slot at IETF-52 in Salt Lake City. We have three drafts
still outstanding in our charter:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-asym-06.txt

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-link-design-06.txt

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pilc-2.5g3g-04.txt

I have been told to expect a revision on ASYM, incorporating responses
to the comments on the list. We can put discussion of section 3 on the
agenda if there we can't get a working group consensus before the
meeting.

Hopefully, Phil will deliver an update of LINK with an updated 'Security
Consideration' paragraph. However, I feel we beat that issue to death
and haven't seen any new points made since London. So, I'm not
inclined to spend meeting time rehashing the topic. 

Finally, we've just had a revision released on 2.5g3g. There's been no
discussion yet on this list. So, I'd like some feedback from the group
as to whether we should put it on the agenda for our face-to-face
meeting.
 
So, I'm seeking input from the group on what we should discuss -- the
topics above or others.

--aaron

---

From: Dan Grossman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:28:47 -0400

It's kinda difficult to know whether there's anything to discuss until we've 
seen the ASYM and LINK drafts.   I'm dearly hoping that the new drafts will be 
ready for last call and not need further discussion, in SLC or on the list.  
And, yes, I'm quite sensitive to the fact that I've been the most vocal in 
objecting to parts of these drafts, and again invite their respective editors 
to work with me to see that the concerns are addressed.

Except for the possible recharter, it looks like we've done everything in the 
current charter.  And I haven't seen any signs that we have a case to  modify 
any IETF protocols -- am I wrong here?

So unless problems persist in ASYM and LINK, perhaps we can declare victory 
and tell the IESG that our work is completed and not have to meet in SLC?