Beyond just dividing the agenda into four pieces, I believe we need some
"housekeeping" time in the agenda so that we leave with concrete and recorded
next steps with owners, including the wording for polls/consensus call
questions, so we don't lose time after the meeting for those to be formulated
out of band before we're able to involve the whole working group. It will be
easy to focus on generating those proposed resolutions and questions while
we're in the same room together. Not so much once people have parted ways...
I'd want us to also leave some time near the end to discuss WebCrypto/JOSE
interactions, if we have time to do so. And Use Cases discussions would be a
nice-to-have as well.
I support Peter St. Andre's sentiment that the using the in-person meeting for
generating agreement on thorny issues is key. I think that was always the
intent of the interim meeting.
Cheers,
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter
Saint-Andre
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 11:39 AM
To: Richard Barnes
Cc: Mike Jones; Karen O'Donoghue; Jim Schaad; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [jose] Proposed Agenda for Interim Working Group Meeting
On 4/15/13 11:57 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> So maybe we could divide the agenda roughly in 4, and have one large
> discussion on each of the above topics, with the goal of getting
> consensus on some answers to the above questions.
+1 to using the in-person meeting for generating agreement on thorny
issues...
Peter
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
