Subject: Meeting times and agenda

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 00:49:35 -0500 (EST)

I have posted a preliminary agenda for our Prague meeting on the IETF web
site.  Please feel free to comment or propose changes.  Also, please see
my comments below about adding a second meeting session.

I've tried to change the structure slightly in order to mostly avoid what
has become a fairly lengthy status update at the start of each meeting.
Instead, I'd like to try going over the complete list of active items,
discussing any comments or open issues for each item.  As noted on the
agenda, I don't think any of the authors or editors of these documents
need to prepare slides, unless you have an issue to discuss for which they
would be useful.

For this meeting, I'd like to then move on to a discussion of proposed
work that we might want to have included on our new charter.  I expect
that much of this discussion will focus on preauth mechanisms, and in
particular on whether we want to adopt preauth-fw and if so, how other
mechanisms would fit in to it.  In addition, Sam tells me he has a list of
open issues on which he'd like input from the WG.  Unfortunately, it's
looking like Sam will be unable to attend our scheduled meeting, due to a
conflict with a BOF scheduled at the same time.

Because of this, and of the amount of time that may be involved, I'd like
to propose that we request a second meeting slot, which would _probably_
be scheduled at 1520 on Tuesday, in a slot which until recently was
occupied by KITTEN (but I can't speak for ietf-agenda).  The idea would be
to use the existing slot to cover current work and possibly some
non-preauth proposals, and move the preauth discussion to the new slot.

However, if we're going to do this, we must act quickly, as the meeting is
not far off (it's likely already too late to change the paper agenda).
So, I'd like to hear comments on whether this is a good idea.

-- Jeff

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 16:38:55 -0500

I'd like to see the preauth-fw discussion in the second slot if
possible.  A way to do that might be to focus on which mechanisms to
adopt but not to discuss how they interact with preauth-fw until the
next session.

--Sam

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:53:45 -0500 (EST)

> non-preauth proposals, and move the preauth discussion to the new slot.

Sam and I contacted the agenda people yesterday, and we now have a second
meeting slot on Tuesday, 1520-1720, in the Karlin II room.  I will post an
updated agenda soon which reflects the additonal slot and the split of
topics between slots.

-- Jeff

---

From: Shoichi Sakane <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:57:46 +0900

Hi Jeff,

Thank you for the coordination of our meeting.

Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> site.  Please feel free to comment or propose changes.

I am focusing the cross-realm issues in the preliminary charter.
I thought that I would request to have two short presentations.
One was about draft-kamada-krb-client-friendly-cross-01.txt.
Another was about draft-zrelli-krb-xtgsp-01.txt.  Both were about
10 or 15 minutes.  The purpose is to introduce them to the working
group, and to put them upon the table to make a next step.

However, from the preliminary agenda, there are many items to be
discussed even we have two slots, and time seems very tight.
Do you think that I will have time to do that within either slot ?
If there is no time in any slot, could you please suggest me how
to do ?

Best regards,

P.S.
Nevertheless, if I were in a neutral and fair manner, it should be
done within the charter discussion by you, Jeff.  In this case,
is my previous mail, the summary of cross-realm issues, useful
for you to make the charter discussion in the first slot ?

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:00:42 -0400

> for you to make the charter discussion in the first slot ?

There will definitely be time to discuss the problem-statement document 
during the first meeting session (on Monday afternoon).  Whether we also 
discuss proposals for solutions will depend on how much time we have and on 
whether there appears to be consensus that we are ready to do so.

-- Jeff