Subject: RE: Resolving geo discussions

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 00:31:18 -0400

That is a very fair question. If we cannot do that we should not use up
IETF finances for brainstorming with no agenda.  Times are not good the
IETF must use their resources wisely for sure.

If we build content and agenda and force some agreement and compromise
we may be able to move forward. 

As far as brainstorming I did it one night with Michel, Christian, and a
few others I think we want to do that not in formal meeting whenever
possible.

Suggestion:

Work on content and agenda so we can have meeting.  Realize folks will
show up who are not here too and so that will, as always, be variable to
the processes so the chairs have to try to focus the meeting.  I know
this is normal but wanted to state it.

Agenda:

Requirements state - Chairs

Location and Identification Architecture (can we agree on some base
principles before the IETF and then present them at IETF) - ???

Routing Problem and Complexity and where the fix has to be (same if we
can agree on base that would be useful to IETF attendees) - ????

Existing work that has input to the above loc/id and route complexity
issues:

1) MAP (michel) (send in IDs)
2) Mobile IPv6 idea (christian) (send in IDs)
3) HIP (pekka N.) (send in IDs)

Working Group Next Plans - Chairs.

NOTE - Not sure if we agree to put out base GEO doc stuff but that
INFO/BCP could be agenda item too but I did not see consensus on the
mail list from my view ????

Post IETF - I can look into hosting mutli6 offline whatever meeting in
New Hampshire late September before fall IETF meeting for brainstorm
part II as we need to do what Tony stated before that and this can be
part II.  Times are tough for vendors but I will go ask for support of
an offsite if folks want.  Good to schedule so folks can check out fall
colors up here too if possible :---)  Given that I am alive and well
after my Harley adventure and come back to the system :---) 

Regards,
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 10:53 PM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: Tony Li; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Resolving geo discussions
> 
> 
> > Why can't we develop an agenda with content and use that as 
> discussion 
> > content and request an agenda.
> 
> good question.  that is THE question, and the lack thereof is 
> why there have been no meetings.
> 
> randy
> 
>

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 03:06:42 +0200

On vrijdag, apr 18, 2003, at 06:31 Europe/Amsterdam, Bound, Jim wrote:

> IETF finances for brainstorming with no agenda.

How does this cost the IETF money? Do they pay for the rooms by the 
hour?

> we may be able to move forward.

Yes, let's focus on what we can agree upon. I'll be happy do defend geo 
aggregation for years to come (and don't think I won't) but I'd be 
equally happy to shelf the geo stuff and support something that has 
more long-term potential and if and when this wg starts to work on 
something like this.

> part II

Maybe you can move this to mid october just before the NANOG meeting?

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:40:51 +0200

> IETF must use their resources wisely for sure.

Valid point.

> we may be able to move forward.

Actually, I tend to have a somewhat different opinion than Randy. I 
agree that we need a solid agenda, but I also think that we need a 
meeting to get people more engaged and meeting face to face also always 
helps.

> this is normal but wanted to state it.

It's a good point. Even if only people in here showed up :-)

> Requirements state - Chairs

Well, I think we have concluded that requirements vary. We have more of 
a benchmark document, that we hopefully have published by then. I think 
that is as good starting point as we gets. Right?

> principles before the IETF and then present them at IETF) - ???

This would be good.

> can agree on base that would be useful to IETF attendees) - ????

Do you really think that this is worth it? This will depend on the 
outcome of your first point.

> 3) HIP (pekka N.) (send in IDs)

Having these suggestions presented (with associated IDs) might give 
some picture of the problems of each type of solution.

> mail list from my view ????

Agreed.

> after my Harley adventure and come back to the system :---)

I have been playing with this idea as well. Let's keep this option open 
for a while and see where we end up. If this is to be useful we need 
something with a lot more substance than what we have now.

- kurtis -