[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: no interim meeting -- read the rules
Andy Bierman wrote:
Hi,
Here is the IESG rules on holding interim meetings:
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/Interim-meetings.txt
We can't have an interim meeting within 30 days before the IETF,
and we can't have one instead of our 2 hour slot just after
the IETF.
Actually our AD just informed me that he thinks it
would be okay to have the regular NETCONF session
on Friday morning, and then continue the interim
(for those who want to stay) until Sunday.
That is what we will plan to do. July 14-16 at the
IETF #66 hotel.
Thank you to everybody who offered to host the interim.
I hope you will show up in Montreal instead.
Andy
There is supposedly interest in the notification work.
I don't understand why most of these people have time
and money to go to an interim to work on this topic,
but they don't have time to read the draft and send comments
to the mailing list, or show up to the IETF meeting in Dallas
prepared to work on this document.
As Dan and Dave H. pointed out, we need to agree on what
we are doing and why we are doing it. Several people
have told me (and mentioned on the list) that they
don't understand why we are reinventing syslog instead
of working on network configuration.
So let's write down all the reasons why we need notifications
in NETCONF, and why using or extending existing standards
instead won't work.
It doesn't really matter which parameters get passed
in the 'start-notifications' RPC if the entire work item
ends up in the dumpster, does it?
Andy
--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>
--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>