Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP and HOKEY interim meetings

From: "Charles Clancy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 13:50:49 -0500 (EST)

(oops, I accidentally sent this to EMU instead of CAPWAP... copy/paste
error... sorry everyone...)

CAPWAP and HOKEY WGs,

The chairs of both CAPWAP and HOKEY feel an interim meeting between IETF
67 and 68 is necessary in order to meet their respective milestones.  Due
to a likely overlap in some participants, consecutive, co-located meetings
are suggested.

The chairs propose to hold a 3-day event (1 day for HOKEY followed by 2
days for CAPWAP) in the San Francisco Bay area the week of January 22. Due
to a preference of not traveling on weekends, meeting Tue-Thu (Jan 23-25)
is suggested.  Please send comments to the lists on the proposed schedule,
area, preference on dates, and which meeting(s) you're likely to attend.
Also please indicate any possible overlooked conflicts with conferences
and other events.

If your organization would be interested in providing a venue to host the
event, please let us know.  In particular, we are interested in your
site's space availability, accessibility to visitors, guest Internet
connectivity, ability to provide lunch, and proximity to a major airport
and reasonably-priced hotels.

Thanks!
-- 
t. charles clancy, ph.d.  <>  [email-masked]  <>  www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy

_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap

---

From: "Mani, Mahalingam (Mani)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 13:26:12 -0700

During the IETF67 sessions, the need for an interim was mooted in order
to

(a) meet (even) the new revised milestone timeline and so be able to
(b) resolve thorny issues face-face. This proposal met with widespread
agreement at the meeting.

It was also felt it may be optimal to maximize and optimize attendance
by locating it in the San Francisco Bay Area and over two days. The week
of Jan 22, somewhat specifically, Jan 24-25 or 25-26 has been arrived
at.

This has been chosen to
1. give enough people enough time (after the Nov IETF meeting) and WG to
make list-progress meanwhile
2. after the holidays enough time to prepare for such a meeting
3. avoid key meetings and conflicts, such as IEEE802.11 Interim in
mid-January (14-19).

Incidentally, the newly-formed HoKey WG has also a plan to drive an
Interim around the same timeframe and prefers the same location. With at
least a few likely to be involved in both it works out well. HoKey is
intended to be a one-day affair as described in the email below - and
going first.

Interested hosts/participants:
Do also read and respond to the forwarded portion of email below -
applicable to this list. Do let us know soon (next week or two) so we
can go forward with other processes in IETF to get this done in time.

Participants: You may respond to the chairs to say if you will be
attending - to give us an idea of how many participants organizers
should plan for.

[This was meant to be sent to CAPWAP WG list by Charles Clancy - one of
our two security area advisors and also a co-chair of HOKEY - as we
agreed].

-(Mani for) CAPWAP chairs

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Charles Clancy
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 10:01 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [Hokeyp] CAPWAP and HOKEY interim meetings

CAPWAP and HOKEY WGs,

The chairs of both CAPWAP and HOKEY feel an interim meeting between IETF
67 and 68 is necessary in order to meet their respective milestones.
Due
to a likely overlap in some participants, consecutive, co-located
meetings
are suggested.

The chairs propose to hold a 3-day event (1 day for HOKEY followed by 2
days for CAPWAP) in the San Francisco Bay area the week of January 22.
Due
to a preference of not traveling on weekends, meeting Tue-Thu (Jan
23-25)
is suggested.  Please send comments to the lists on the proposed
schedule,
area, preference on dates, and which meeting(s) you're likely to attend.

If your organization would be interested in providing a venue to host
the

Thanks!

_______________________________________________
Hokeyp mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.opendiameter.org/mailman/listinfo/hokeyp

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:24:34 -0500

Hi Madjid,

I dropped EMU, as Charles indicate that it was a mistake to include  
them.

I will leave the HOKEY-specific questions to the HOKEY Chairs.

As for CAPWAP, we currently have a list of issues that we have  
determined would benefit from face-to-face discussion.  A number of  
those issues were covered in the San Diego WG meeting, and we were  
able to close most of them (subject to confirmation on the list) and  
clarify some of the others.  We plan to update the open issues list  
before the interim and to continue working through the issues, in  
much the same way as we did at the WG meeting in San Diego.

I am hopeful that the editors will be able to update the CAPWAP base  
spec before the meeting to reflect the issues that have been resolved  
so far, and that they can do another update between the interim  
meeting and the IETF meeting in Prague.  That should help us to have  
a document that is ready for IEEE review and WGLC by March.

> That said, if we are still planning to meet, and if there is a  
> discussion in
> CAPWAP that relates to hokey, then I suggest that such CAPWAP  
> session is as
> close in time to the hokey day, so we can minimize travel needs. If  
> the
> first is true and there is a need to coordination, I would suggest  
> to have
> the CAPWAP-hokey meeting on a half day next to hokey meeting day  
> next to
> day, e.g. if hokey is on Thursday, the CAPWAP-hokey meeting would  
> be on
> Wednesday afternoon.

AFAIK, there is no CAPWAP session that is specifically related to  
HOKEY.  Both groups wanted to have interim meetings in the same  
timeframe, and we noticed that several people would need to attend  
both meetings, so we thought it would be useful to plan the meetings  
back-to-back.

Margaret