Subject: Re: [Ietf-krb-wg] IET78 meeting, or not?

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:05:40 -0400

--On Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:47:56 AM -0400 Jeffrey Hutzelman 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> In trying to put together an agenda for the upcoming meeting, I've found
> that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot requiring discussion.  We have
> a number of documents which are in various stages of "end game", working
> their way through the process but not requring much attention from the
> WG, and a number of others which are mostly stalled until either the
> authors find cycles or new volunteers appear.  There are a few things
> being actively worked on, but I don't think any of these have outstanding
> issues requiring meeting time.
>
> Therefore, and because we have a short timeslot and the IETF meeting as a
> whole is rather tightly scheduled, Larry and I propose that we not meet
> at all this time around, and leave the time for some other group which
> needs it more than we do at present.
>
> Draft agendas are due tomorrow afternoon, so this is a decision we need
> to make fairly quickly.  If anyone has objections to _not_ meeting, or
> knows of an issue which requires meeting time, please let Larry and I
> know sometime within the next 24 hours (by noon EDT Wednesday).

OK; I've seen no responses to this on the mailing list.  The only issues 
that have been raised to me via other channels have been:

- Hasnaa Moustafa's draft, which I think needs more mailing list discussion
  before there is any purpose in discussing it at a meeting.  As I have
  mentioned in the past, we try to avoid "presentations" and instead use
  meeting time for actual technical discussion of current or proposed work.
  I do not think we are ready for such discussion on this document.

- The Camellia draft, which is not (yet) a krb-wg document.  I think this
  also needs further discussion here, particularly with regard to the
  question of whether we even want to adopt it.  I spoke with Tom Yu and
  Thomas Hardjono about this today, and encouraged them to try to get that
  discussion going again.

- The IANA considerations document, which I gather doesn't really _need_
  face-to-face time at the moment, but might make use of some if it were
  available.

Given this, I think it is appropriate to cancel the meeting, and intend to 
do so if I don't hear any objections in the next few hours.  Again, I know 
this is short notice, but I'd rather cancel than have people show up and 
consume meeting space with nothing much to do.

-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: Quanah Gibson-Mount <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:10:41 -0700

> --On Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:47:56 AM -0400 Jeffrey Hutzelman

What about the Kerberos LDAP schema, or should that just be considered 
dead?  Last email on it that I see was 10/17/2009.

--Quanah

--

Quanah Gibson-Mount
Principal Software Engineer
Zimbra, Inc
--------------------
Zimbra ::  the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 22:07:59 -0400

> dead?  Last email on it that I see was 10/17/2009.

The LDAP schema is, I think, contingent on finishing the data model 
document.  The data model document finished WGLC a while ago, and is 
waiting for a chair to finish the writeup and send it to the IESG.

-- Jeff

---

From: Quanah Gibson-Mount <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:12:32 -0700

> waiting for a chair to finish the writeup and send it to the IESG.

Hi Jeff,

Thanks, that is helpful information.

--Quanah

--

Quanah Gibson-Mount