Subject: Draft agenda for RSVP WG meeting

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:59:41 -0800

In Oslo, the RSVP WG meeting decided to move the RSVP performance and
liveness (PAL: neat, eh?) enhancement schemes (ACK, overhead reduction)
to Proposed Atandard *before* the next meeting in Washington DC, so no
further meetings would be required.

However, this has turned out to be optimistic.  We do not believe the
spec has reached technical maturity.  Furthermore, the recent
appearance of a competing draft shows that the WG is still some
distance from consensus.  We therefore decided to schedule an RSVP WG
meeting in Washington.  This meeting is scheduled for 9:00-11:30 next
Tuesday.

(We apologize for saying this so late.  We had simply not noticed that
we had failed to apprise the WG of the meeting decision.)

Since we do have 2.5 hours, we will bring up another issue that has
arisen: the application of RSVP using proxies.  (We will forward a
bunch of messages on this).  It is very unclear to us how and where
this should go forward, so we would like to have a presentation
followed by a procedural discussion.

As always, YOU WILL BE EXPECTED TO HAVE READ THE DRAFTS BEFORE
ATTENDING THE MEETING.

Following is a rough meeting agenda.

Bob Braden
Lixia Zhang
_________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AGENDA: RSVP Working Group
Tuesday Nov 9 0900-1130

* Introduction: co-chairs				 5 mins

* RSVP Proxy Draft: Silvano Gai				20 mins

	draft-sgai-rsvp-proxy-00.txt

* Discussion of Proxy Draft				20 mins
	(Largely procedural)

* Recent changes in Berger Draft: Lou Berger		10 mins

	draft-ietf-rsvp-refresh-reduct-01.txt

* Tommasi draft: Franco Tommasi				20 mins

	(How it differs from Berger draft)

	draft-tommasi-rsvp-enhan-scalab-01.txt

* Discussion of Berger & Tommasi drafts                  75 mins

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 20:33:00 -0500

Bob, Lixia,
         I'll try to limit my talk to 10min, but I think 20 minutes would 
be more reasonable (and equatable.)   Given the time we plan to devote to 
the topic I think more than just a brief summary of changes is called for.

Also, I think we'd all be interested in hearing about any deficiencies you 
see in the latest rev of the draft.  Maybe we can dispose of some issues by 
e-mail even before we meet?

Thanks,
Lou