RE: draft sub-ip area meeting in SLC

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

we published *draft* minuites so that people can fill in what they
said (or thought they said)

and we will gladly take any other notes that people took and merge them
into what we got and will gladly accept offers for additional minute
takers for the next meeting

Scott

------

From lmak@lucent.com  Wed Jan  9 08:26:29 2002
From: "Mak, L (Leen)" <lmak@lucent.com>
To: "'Scott  Bradner'" <sob@harvard.edu>
Cc: "'subip-area@subip.ietf.org'" <subip-area@subip.ietf.org>
Subject: RE: draft sub-ip area meeting in SLC
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 14:26:17 +0100 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

> 
> Draft minutes of the SLC Sub-IP Area meeting
> 
> comments by Jan 11 at 8pm EST 
> 	thanks
> 		Bert & Scott
> 

Scott, Bert,

I did not have the opportunity to be in SLC, so I was very curious about 
the sub-ip meeting minutes in order to learn what happened. 
Now, having read the notes, I feel a bit disappointed.

Yes, I realize very well that we must not burden the note taking with 
requirements that it delivers a complete and formal transcription of 
the whole meeting. However, with all due respect for the note takers,
IMHO the notes as we have them available now are a bit too rough. 

Let me illustrate this opinion by a few examples.

1) The notes just list things people have said ("ripe and green" as we say
in Dutch), without something like a summary or a recapitulation. I am in 
the dark what the conclusions of the discussions were, if any.

2) The WG status overviews are not very helpful. Under all the WG names 
there are little lists of issues. The only thing I can infer from those lists is 
that these issues are subjects of interest to the WGs. But that is hardly 
news.
I would have loved it if the status of the work on those issues would have 
been noted (e.g. in terms like "still big debate", "converging opinions", 
"issue settled").

3) In the open mike part it is completely unclear what some people might 
have meant. See e.g. the last line of the remark made by ???, just below 
Mark Townsly's comments. It reads: 
"MPLS has noting to do with IP there is a very strong relationship." 
Me: ??????

The minutes end with the statement "Important to get the discussion out 
in the open. further discussion on the SUB IP mailing list".
I fail to see how someone who was not in the meeting can make a 
constructive contribution to this discussion based on what these minutes 
tell. 

And, just to answer the question which undoubtly some of you are 
considering right now: yes, I am prepared to contribute to the note taking
in the next meeting.

Regards,

Leen Mak.