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 protected]>
Minutes : Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]>
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
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
