Changes between Version 666 and Version 667 of InformalAgenda


Ignore:
Timestamp:
28/08/12 11:27:47 (11 years ago)
Author:
turners@…
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • InformalAgenda

    v666 v667  
    1 = Informal Telechat 23-August-2012 =
     1= Informal Telechat 6-September-2012 =
    22
    33Web Ex URL: https://workgreen.webex.com/workgreen/j.php?ED=196609052&UID=0&PW=NN2MzN2ZlNDRj&RT=MiM0
    … …  
    99== 2. Document Discussions ==
    1010
    11 == 2.1. draft-george-ipv6-support (Brian) ==
    12 
    13 The authors (who I will invite to the first part of the call) want advice on if/how they should proceed with this draft.  Since the draft will directly impact how the IESG reviews documents and charters, I felt it was worthy of some discussion prior to giving them direction.
    1411
    1512== 3. Management Issues ==
    16 
    17 === 3.1. Providing a crisp definition of "Updates" (Adrian) ===
    18 
    19 There is confusion amongst authors about what "updates" means. They point to many cases in history where it has been used to mean "provides an optional extension to".
    20 
    21 Barry, Robert, and I all think it means "provides a normative update to". That is, if RFC Y updates RFC X, then all new implementations of the protocol specified by RFC X are supposed to implement RFC Y as well.
    22 
    23 Setting aside our amazement that we have gotten this far with no written definition of "Updates", is it time to make a clear an unambiguous statement for all *future* uses of the meta-data? If I did so based on Barry/Robert/my understanding, would that be approximately right?
    24 
    25 Ron's proposed definition is attached.
    26 
    27 === 3.2. MANIAC Challenge at IETF-87 in Berlin (Adrian) ===
    28 
    29 A group of folk are considering running an event they call "The MANIAC
    30 Challenge" (http://www.maniacchallenge.org/). This is essentially interop and
    31 demonstration of some of the IETF's ad hoc routing protocols (see the MANET
    32 working group). They thought that the confluence of people at IETF-87, together
    33 with the location, might turn out well.
    34 
    35 I've been over the very high-level stuff about not detracting from IETF work,
    36 and the conclusion is that the few days running up to IETF-87 might be good.
    37 Probably the Saturday and Sunday.
    38 
    39 This takes us on to the next steps which are to see whether the location and
    40 price would be suitable. If not, they might still pick those dates, but might
    41 find another location in Berlin, for example the University.
    42 
    43 I am talking to Ray. Does anyone have any concerns? Is there anything else I
    44 should do?
    45 
    46 === 3.3. Brief discussion of the shepherd writeup proposal (Barry) ===
    47 
    48 Since there's time, I'd just like to chat briefly about Stephen's and Adrian's comments, and solicit others.
    4913
    5014-------------------------------------------------------------------------------