At 01:42 PM 1/16/2002, John Klensin wrote: >* Should we continue with the two-plenary model? Should we do >so at every IETF, or consider some sort of periodic or >occasional schedule?
The two plenary model is good since it gives us time needed to address the issues. If people want to participate, they need to adjust their schedules to do so. Many of us were a bit surprised by the SLC schedule, but that should not be the case in the future. >* Do you have major architectural themes that should be >addressed during the next IAB plenary if one is held? Well we have major issues on the Internet these days with the rise of multimedia real-time apps and the even present concerns about NAT and IPv6. It should be clear that the way we viewed NAT and IPv6 a few years ago has changed dramatically. It sure couldn't hurt to revisit some of our positions. >* And should the IAB try to control microphone time, or is it >better to let people explain their views at whatever length that >takes? Yes please control the mike! The same goes for the IESG. The usefulness of the plenary dissipates when people needlessly flog a dead horse on 10 minute rants. People at the mike should bring up their point or argument, then move on. We can always bring up our gripes in more detail on the IETF email list.
