Subject: Draft agenda for Seoul

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:48:18 +0100

current agenda :

WEDNESDAY, March 3, 2004
0900-1130 Morning Sessions
===========================

1. Agenda bashing 5
2. Charter review 15
3. Short intros to NEW drafts  20
    draft-ohta-multi6-threats-00.txt
    draft-ohta-multi6-8plus8-00.txt 20 minutes
    draft-ohira-multi6-multilink-auto-prefix-assign-00.txt

4. draft-lear-multi6-things-to-think-about-00.txt 30
5. Architectural analysis, Geoff Houston, 20 mins.

Note that I will split the 20 minutes between all _NEW_ drafts that 
want a slot. This means your allocated time per draft will get less and 
less. Expect it to be around 2-3 minutes. This means that on the 
contrary to earlier WG meetings, see these slots as an opportunity for 
clarifying questions, not for presenting the solution. That should be 
in the draft...:-)

Other authors of -00 drafts, mail me for slot allocations.

Best regards,

- - kurtis -

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:37:12 +0100

Updated agenda to fix a typo and add a draft I had forgotten...

WEDNESDAY, March 3, 2004

1. Agenda bashing 5
2. Charter review 15
3. Short intros to NEW drafts  20 min
    draft-ohta-multi6-threats-00.txt
    draft-ohta-multi6-8plus8-00.txt
    draft-ohira-multi6-multilink-auto-prefix-assign-00.txt
    draft-ylitalo-multi6-wimp-00.txt

- - kurtis -

On 2004-02-10, at 12.48, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> 	
>
> current agenda :
>
> WEDNESDAY, March 3, 2004
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP 8.0.3
>
> iQA/AwUBQCjFBaarNKXTPFCVEQJ9xwCgjFRe1JQQc5Ra6HOkutKQs/QCGbsAoN6t
> 4opnbNpYPiMRpRWm+r4s8oe/
> =K3NO
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:43:53 +0900

Kurt;

> 0900-1130 Morning Sessions

Can we introduce our drafts by ourselves?

> 5. Architectural analysis, Geoff Houston, 20 mins.

Where is the draft?

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:31:26 +0100

> Can we introduce our drafts by ourselves?

That is the intention. I can add the names of the presenters.

>> 5. Architectural analysis, Geoff Houston, 20 mins.

It doesn't say this is a draft presentation. It says it's an analysis.  
There is an RFC and there is Eliots draft. Both are aimed and providing 
some guidelines. Me and Brian have asked Geoff among others to review a 
long list of drafts that have been published over the years and make a 
first rough analysis. And before this starts out as a new thread - 
let's see the presentation first, let's discuss AFTER that.

- - kurtis -

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:52:20 +0900

Kurt;

> let's see the presentation first, let's discuss AFTER that.

It is a waste of time to here a  presentation of someone's analysis
on someone else's proposals, when the presenter does not correctly
understand the proposals.

So, if you ask Geoff make presentation, let him have a chance
to let his presentation content reviewed by those who made
proposals, IN ADVANCE.

Let's have a presentation AFTER that.

Otherwise, discussion time is wasted on corrections of the
presentation.

That is the way to use limited meeting time most efficiently.

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:22:47 +0100

> understand the proposals.

You are not obliged to listen to that part. :-)

Seriously, if Geoff or anybody else can't make out how a proposal is 
supposed to work from the drafts submitted - then we have other 
problems.

Again, let's have this discussion after Seoul - or off list. Not here.

- - kurtis -

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:50:37 +0900

Kurt;

> You are not obliged to listen to that part. :-)

Given that the mailing list is the working gruop, I, like other
people who will not attend the meeting, do not have to, which
is why draft is required.

> supposed to work from the drafts submitted - then we have other 

We always have that problem, which is why advance draft is required.

If you are so sure that Geoff can perfectly understand and evaluate
proposals, we, the WG, don't need any discussion on his evaluation.

So, let him post presentationmaterial and make his slot 0 minutes
long.

> Again, let's have this discussion after Seoul - or off list. Not here.

There is no point to have presentation, which some of us can not
see, then.

The mailing list is the working group.

Here, the mailing list, is the place for presentation and discussion.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:26:07 +0100

> is why draft is required.

I am sure we will see the presentation as well as all other material 
sent here as well.

- - kurtis -