Subject: Re: 65th IETF DRAFT Agenda

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 12:04:22 +0000

Alexey Melnikov wrote:

> Barry Leiba wrote:
>
>> Eric Rescorla said:
>>
>>> The scheduling of DIX against DKIM is kind of a problem for me as well.
>>
>> For me too.  The timing for the DKIM session is perfect (we have two, 
>> and this is the first), so I'd like to see DIX move, if that's possible.
>
> For me as well.
>
> I also have a conflict between SASL and CALSIFY.

I've just checked the updated agenda and the two conflicts are resolved. 
However I've noticed on Monday:

1300-1500 Afternoon Session I
APP  eai        Email Address Internationalization BOF
SEC  dkim       Domain Keys Identified Mail WG

I think a lot of people interested in email would like to be in both.

Thanks,
Alexey

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 08:06:52 -0600

>SEC  dkim       Domain Keys Identified Mail WG

Yup, that's a straight up conflict.

EAI/DKIM chairs: Please make sure to add all e-mail related groups to 
your conflict list in the Session Request Tool 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/cgi-bin/wg/wg_session_requester.cgi).

Just a suggestion: Any problem with swapping DKIM with SAAG on Thursday?

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 14:14:29 +0000

> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/cgi-bin/wg/wg_session_requester.cgi).

I added EAI. I wouldn't know the names of *all* email related groups
but if folks want to send me or Barry an email we can add 'em to the
list.

> Just a suggestion: Any problem with swapping DKIM with SAAG on Thursday?

I would think that's not a great idea - SAAG's agenda always includes
reports from SEC WG chairs so it makes sense for it to be late in the
week.

Stephen.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 10:35:16 -0500

>> EAI/DKIM chairs: Please make sure to add all e-mail related groups
>> to  your conflict list in the Session Request Tool 

Well, this brings up a problem in the process.  I *did* put all the
e-mail-related groups into the tool.  I even wrote in the EAI BOF,
using the unfortunate name it used in Vancouver.  Here it surfaces with
a new name, and the schedulers didn't know, and, of course, I didn't
know either.

The problem is that there's no way to know, when we request scheduling
for the WGs, what BOFs there will be.  It's up to those requesting the
BOF to know which WGs to put on.  Maybe that ought to be sufficient,
but it's not (obviously, those scheduling the EAI BOF didn't put DKIM
on as a conflict).

WIBNI the WG chairs were told of all BOFs, and given the chance to add
them to their conflict lists BEFORE the scheduling's done?

Another issue with scheduling:  We've had several complaints about the
change of the second DKIM session from Tue to Thu -- there are people
who only come for part of the week, because they can't afford time,
travel, or both (time travel?) to be there the whole week.  When there
are two sessions for the same WG, it would be nicer to everyone to have
them scheduled on sequential days (as, in fact, the DKIM sessions
originally were, which was perfect), to allow those who must minimize
travel to optimize their schedules too.

Barry

--
Barry Leiba, Pervasive Computing Technology  ([email-masked])
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/l/leiba
http://www.research.ibm.com/spam

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 14:25:38 +0100

Barry,

> them to their conflict lists BEFORE the scheduling's done?

It would be lovely, but it's impossible, because BOFs are approved too
late for that to happen. It's very hard to push the BOF scheduling date
earlier; there just needs to be enough time since the pervious IETF for
things to fall into place.

> travel to optimize their schedules too.

Again, it would be nice, but the problem is overconstrained. We can
only remind people that the IETF lasts 4.5 days and that late schedule
changes are normal. We now have that message on the web site which is
about the best we can do.

    Brian

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 13:45:42 -0000

Brian,

This is simple. We don't have to wait for a BoF to be confirmed before we
detect a conflict, do we?

Just let the chairs know about BoF requests, we can then report a
potential conflict.

(Actually, I have successfully done this for the last five IETF meetings
and the Secretariat handle it well. Only issue is that I have had to have
an inside track on the potential BoF.)

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 08:31:46 -0800

We have said this for quite a number of years now, and my observation  
is that people believe that other people's sessions can probably move  
but theirs won't. The thing people are trying to optimize is, of  
course, the travel expense; if they can stay two nights and attend  
meetings one day, it is less of an impact on their time than  
attending all week. I guess I resigned myself a while back to the  
notion that I should plan to be there the week, and if I am lucky I  
may be able to leave early.

On Mar 7, 2006, at 5:25 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> changes are normal.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 15:40:09 +0100

> Just let the chairs know about BoF requests, we can then report a

I really wish it was that simple. BOFs change names, merge, and get
cancelled constantly up to the deadline. We've had some discussion
of setting up a wiki for BOFs-in-discussion where at least anyone
could see what was in discussion. But it really crystallizes very
late into definitive scheduling requests that Marcia can work with;
I fear that potential conflicts with unconfirmed BOFs would make
things more difficult, but no better on average.

Not saying there isn't a problem...

    Brian