Subject: RE: krb-wg Agenda for 58th IETF - draft 0.5

From: "Eric Rosenfeld" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:46:28 -0700

Jeff,

I thought the time slot has already been set (Tuesday, 14:15 - 15:15). I
would object to changing the time slot.

Thanks,
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 11:46 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: krb-wg Agenda for 58th IETF - draft 0.5

On Thursday, October 23, 2003 13:47:31 -0400 Jeffrey Hutzelman 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> So far, I have...
> - Avoid conflicts with SASL, SECSH, IPSEC, and SAAG
> - Try to avoid conflicts with other SEC area meetings
> - Avoid conflicts with LDAP, NFSV4, and the APP open area meeting

I've been asked to add XMPP and CALSCH to this list.

> I also seem to recall some preference expressed for Tuesday, but I
can't
> remember why.  If anyone knows, please let me know.  We may have to
drop
> this requirement in order to get a suitable slot.

So far, I've heard no response to this.  If I don't hear anything by the

end of the day, I'll assume the Tuesday requirement was a figment of my 
imagination, and proceed without it.

-- Jeff

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:57:57 -0500

>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Rosenfeld <[email-masked]> writes:

    Eric> Jeff,

    Eric> I thought the time slot has already been set (Tuesday, 14:15
    Eric> - 15:15). I would object to changing the time slot.

Why?  It seems fairly clear that time slot is insufficient for our
needs.

I don't know if this is your concern, but if you are only attending
part of the meeting, that's generally viewed by the working group
chairs and (I think) IESG/IAB as an insufficient reason to object to
an agenda.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:09:37 -0500

>>>>> "Sam" == Sam Hartman <[email-masked]> writes:

    Eric> Jeff,

    Sam> Why?  It seems fairly clear that time slot is insufficient
    Sam> for our needs.

    Sam> I don't know if this is your concern, but if you are only
    Sam> attending part of the meeting, that's generally viewed by the
    Sam> working group chairs and (I think) IESG/IAB as an
    Sam> insufficient reason to object to an agenda.

additional comments suggest that I may be inadequately informed on how
these sorts of issues are handled.  I am correct that when this most
recently came up on the wgchairs list, the responses suggested that
meeting the needs of people who are attending only part of the IETF
meeting should not be a goal.  However, others pointed out to me that
working groups have done so in the past.

However I think we should balance the needs of individuals' schedules
against the needs of the working group to have enough face to face
time.  ANd it seems that one hour on Tuesday is not enough time for us
to do what we need to do.  Do you have any suggestions on how we can
meet your needs while still having more time?