Subject: 68th IETF - DRAFT Meeting Agenda for Review

From: IETF Agenda <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:05:35 -0500

Dear ALL:

The DRAFT agenda for the 68th IETF Meeting can be found at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/meeting_agenda_html.cgi?meeting_num=68. 
Please note that the agenda is in draft form and is subject to change.

We would like to ask you to review the Draft Agenda and send your
comments to [email-masked]. We shall be working on your comments until
the Final Agenda is published which is on Monday, February 26th 
(Important Meeting Dates can be found at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/68-IETF.html).

We would really appreciate your inputs or suggestions on the draft 
agenda and shall try to accommodate your priorities if possible.

IETF Secretariat

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 13:55:43 -0800

> agenda and shall try to accommodate your priorities if possible.

I see that there are a number of cases where SEC or SEC-related
groups collide (HOKEY, KRB-WG), (KITTEN, MSEC), (RPSEC, ISMS, S/MIME),
and (RTPSEC, and IFARE). Obviously, this kind of thing happens when
you have more groups than slots, but I notice that there's no SEC
at all in the first two sessions on Monday. This leads me to wonder
whether things could be spaced out better.

Particular suggestions:
Swap IFARE with IPR or SIEVE so that IFARE and RTPSEC don't
collide.

Swap DIME with KITTEN or MSEC, thus removing a two-SEC situation
and a two-OPS situation.

-Ekr

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 17:28:10 -0500

You tend to get two sec groups in cases where Russ and I need to be
somewhere else both at the same time.  I'd prefer to only deconflict
groups when there is a need to do so.

I do think that ifare and rtpsec must be deconflicted.  I think the
msec conflict is fine.

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 14:29:43 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Rescorla [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 1:56 PM
> To: IETF Agenda
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: 68th IETF - DRAFT Meeting Agenda for Review
> 
> > comments to [email-masked]. We shall be working on your comments 
> > until the Final Agenda is published which is on Monday, 
> February 26th 
> > (Important Meeting Dates can be found at 
> http://www.ietf.org/meetings/68-IETF.html).
> >
> I see that there are a number of cases where SEC or 
> SEC-related groups collide (HOKEY, KRB-WG), (KITTEN, MSEC), 
> (RPSEC, ISMS, S/MIME), and (RTPSEC, and IFARE). Obviously, 
> this kind of thing happens when you have more groups than 
> slots, but I notice that there's no SEC at all in the first 
> two sessions on Monday. This leads me to wonder whether 
> things could be spaced out better.
> 
> Particular suggestions:
> Swap IFARE with IPR or SIEVE so that IFARE and RTPSEC don't collide.
> 

This is problematic, since it will collide with the INT area open
meeting. I view IFARE as having cross-area participation, specifically
with the INT area. So, unfortunately, this swap won't work. Swapping
IFARE with DIME seems okay. 

> Swap DIME with KITTEN or MSEC, thus removing a two-SEC 
> situation and a two-OPS situation.
> 

If we used up the DIME slot for IFARE, we could potentially use the IPR
or SIEVE slot for KITTEN or MSEC, if that works. 

On the HOKEY/KRB-WG collision, I'm inclined to say it is okay - I don't
think we have a lot of overlap in participants between those two groups,
do we? 

Vidya

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:46:12 -0600

SIP meets 3 times in Prague, and ECRIT meets twice - and both times 
conflict with SIP.  All the key folks in ECRIT also attend SIP.

Can this conflict be resolved (separating SIP and ECRIT)?

Otherwise, the agenda looks good to me.

---

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 15:22:15 -0800

Agreed.  I need to be in IFARE as well as RTPsec for the entire duration 
of the two meetings.  MSEC seems fine where it is.  Sam advises KITTEN 
and Russ advises MSEC.

thanks,
Lakshminath

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 09:09:25 +0100

> IFARE with DIME seems okay. 

INTAREA is going to move anyway. And sorry, but while specific clashes
can often be resolved, some dual-tracking within an area is
inevitable.

BTW each time you cc [email-masked], it makes a new ticket in the
ticketing system. That's fine for mentioning specific clashes, but
painful for general discussion.

     Brian

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:06:03 +0200

> From: Narayanan, Vidya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Swapping IFARE with DIME 
> seems okay. 
> 

No, it is not. As schedule stands today this would create a conflict of
dime with the opsarea meeting which is not acceptable. No OPS meetings
or nmrg can happen at the same time as the opsarea meeting. 

Dan

---

From: EKR <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 07:59:03 -0800

> can often be resolved, some dual-tracking within an area is

Sure.

However, as Lakshminath says, IFARE and RTPSEC are a particular problem
since he and I both need to be in both. :)

-Ekr

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:03:19 +0000

>IFARE with DIME seems okay. 
If IFARE is swapped with SIEVE, this will create SIEVE/LEMONADE conflict 
on Thursday, which is really bad for many email people.

>or SIEVE slot for KITTEN or MSEC, if that works. 
SIEVE/KITTEN is conflict for me, even though it is of a secondary 
importance.

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:59:22 -0600

I think you'll find the BLISS/SIMPLE conflict will probably lead to an 
almost completely empty (and therefore useless) BLISS session.

/a

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:20:30 -0500

> SIEVE/KITTEN is conflict for me, even though it is of a secondary

It's a conflict for me as well, and fairly important, since I'll be filling 
in for the KITTEN chair, who will be unable to attend the meeting.

-- Jeff

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:29:39 -0600

>almost completely empty (and therefore useless) BLISS session.

I agree

>>We would really appreciate your inputs or suggestions on the draft agenda 
>>and shall try to accommodate your priorities if possible.
>>
>>IETF Secretariat
>>
>>

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:38:42 -0800

I have proposed a change to resolve this so hopefully we can get this  
conflict fixed. I'm also trying to solve the AVT / Speermint  
conflict, and the ECRIT /SIP conflict.

On Feb 12, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Adam Roach wrote:

> I think you'll find the BLISS/SIMPLE conflict will probably lead to  
> an almost completely empty (and therefore useless) BLISS session.
>
> /a
>
> IETF Agenda wrote:
>> Dear ALL:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/meeting_agenda_html.cgi? 
>> meeting_num=68. Please note that the agenda is in draft form and  
>> is subject to change.
>>
>> until

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:42:29 -0500

What I see that needs to be moved is that

TSVAREA collides with MBoned.

I would prefer if NEMO and PIM did not collide, but that is a  
preference.

Regards
Marshall

On Feb 9, 2007, at 4:05 PM, IETF Agenda wrote:

> meeting_num=68.

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:08:41 +0000

I second that... MBONED has become the home for many operational 
multicast issues that impact transport and I'd try hard to attend both. 
  I would suspect that many other OPS WG meetings aren't like this - 
would it cause an issue to suggest, for instance, to swap MBONED with 
ADSL MIB one day earlier?

Gorry

Marshall Eubanks wrote:

> I would prefer if NEMO and PIM did not collide, but that is a  preference.
> 
> Regards
> Marshall
>

---

From: "Alper Yegin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:29:42 +0200

PANA and SAAG meetings are at the same time slot.
Could you please move them away from each other if possible.

Thanks.

Alper

> From: IETF Agenda [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 11:06 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: 68th IETF - DRAFT Meeting Agenda for Review
> 
> Dear ALL:
>