Subject: [yam] IETF81 YAM minutes - Version 0.1

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:59:23 -0700

The YAM WG held a meeting at IETF81.  This is Version 0.1 of the 
minutes.  Please email me any changes.

Yet Another Mail Working Group Minutes

Meeting : IETF81, Tuesday 26 July, 2011
Location: Quebec City, 204B, 17:10 to 18:10
Chairs  : Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Minutes : Murray S. Kucherawy <[email-masked]>
		  Version 0.1

AGENDA

  A. Meeting Administrivia
     Note well
     Agenda bashing
  B. Status of draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis
  C. Rechartering
  D. Any Other Business

A. Meeting Administrivia

Tony Hansen chaired the the IETF81 YAM Working Group meeting in 
Quebec City, Canada.   Murray S. Kucherawy was the scribe.  Joseph 
Yee was the Jabber scribe.

The Chair brought the Note Well to the attention of the meeting 
participants, asked them to sign the blue sheets, bashed the agenda 
and provided the URLs to the meeting materials.

B. Status of draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis

The Working Group Last Call for RFC 4409bis has been completed.  A 
new version of the draft will be posted incorporating some comments 
from Chris Newman and there will be a new WGLC.  There was some 
discussion about about timeouts that web clients might not like very much.

C. Rechartering

The Chair asked John Klensin to comment on a message to the mailing 
list about the value proposition associated with other specs, 
especially if a two-step standards process is adopted.

The charter discussion was summarized and the goals of the existing 
charter were pointed out:

  (a) advance docs to full standard

  (b) process experiment

The working group has been on hiatus for the past year because of the 
two-track proposal.  As the two-track proposal hasn't been adopted, 
the question put to the working group was:

  - well two-track hasn't been adopted; should we continue to wait?
  - proposed new charter presented
  - or do we just shut down?  shift current work to appsawg or the ISE?

Pete Resnick mentioned that he can't see the difference between 
totally rechartering and just starting a new WG.  The question would 
need to be discussed on the mailing list to come to a conclusion.

Dave maintained the value proposition is negative; this is strategic 
and tactical work, not current pressing work.  Dave pointed out 
there's no apparent energy in the room to continue; we should shut 
down.  Barry and John concurred; Pete also concurred; he would prefer 
not to go indefinitely dormant.

Barry does not want APPSAWG to become a dumping ground for stuff WGs 
don't want to do.  John is concerned about mail stuff being dumped 
into APPSAWG; he would prefer brief focused WGs.  Pete does not want 
to do mail documents as individual submissions if it can be 
avoided.  If necessary, individual submissions need to be fully 
processed before bringing them to an AD.  Pete recommended recommends 
lining up reviewers for each document ahead of time, make some hard deadlines.

The Chair asked for a hum on the question of shutting down the 
working group.  The question asked was:

  - The two-track hasn't been adopted; should we continue to wait?
  - or do we just shut down?

Although the air conditioning unit appeared to be consistently 
opposed to the shut down, the consensus was solid to shut down the 
working group.

D. Any Other Business

Murray will start up multipart/report update to see if APPSAWG wants 
it or if it should go as individual.

Mike O'Rierdan from Comcast asked for review of his email transition document.

The Chair ended the meeting at 18:11.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy