Content Distribution Internetworking (cdi)

The IESG | 7 Nov 2002 21:11

Note Well Statement


>From time to time, especially just before a meeting, this statement is to
be sent to each and every IETF working group mailing list.
===========================================================================

				NOTE WELL

All statements related to the activities of the IETF and addressed to the
IETF are subject to all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026, which grants
to the IETF and its participants certain licenses and rights in such
statements.

Such statements include verbal statements in IETF meetings, as well as
written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are
addressed to

    - the IETF plenary session,
    - any IETF working group or portion thereof,
    - the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG,
    - the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB,
    - any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself,
      any working group or design team list, or any other list
      functioning under IETF auspices,
    - the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function

Statements made outside of an IETF meeting, mailing list or other function,
that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity, group or
function, are not subject to these provisions.

(Continue reading)

headers

Mark Day | 8 Nov 2002 21:07

Proposed agenda / should we meet?

Below is a proposed agenda for a meeting in Atlanta. However, I recently
learned that neither the editor of the new threat model nor the editor of
the architecture document will be present. So if we are meeting I need
substitutes to (a) present the open issues for those documents and (b) own
the task of capturing any changes or solutions that come out of the meeting.

If we can't hit critical mass to make some sort of meaningful progress in
Atlanta, I expect I will cancel the meeting.

--Mark

Content Distribution Internetworking (CDI)

Thursday November 21, 1300-1500

Chair: Mark Day <markday <at> cisco.com>

Agenda:

Review of status of all group drafts (5 min)

MODEL draft-ietf-cdi-model-02
KNOWN-MECHANISMS draft-ietf-cdi-known-request-routing-01
ARCHITECTURE draft-ietf-cdi-architecture-01
RR-REQS draft-ietf-cdi-request-routing-reqs-01
AAA-REQS draft-ietf-cdi-aaa-reqs-01
SCENARIOS draft-ietf-cdi-scenarios-01
THREATS draft-ietf-cdi-threat-00
DIST-REQS [No draft currently available]

(Continue reading)

headers

Paul Knight | 11 Nov 2002 17:01

RE: Proposed agenda / should we meet?

Hi Mark,

I will be there to present and discuss the threat model draft on behalf of Abbie Barbir, the draft editor. I certainly vote to hold the meeting as planned.

Regards,
Paul Knight

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Day [mailto:markday <at> cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 3:07 PM
> To: cdn <at> ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Proposed agenda / should we meet?
>
>
> Below is a proposed agenda for a meeting in Atlanta. However,
> I recently learned that neither the editor of the new threat
> model nor the editor of the architecture document will be
> present. So if we are meeting I need substitutes to (a)
> present the open issues for those documents and (b) own the
> task of capturing any changes or solutions that come out of
> the meeting.
>
> If we can't hit critical mass to make some sort of meaningful
> progress in Atlanta, I expect I will cancel the meeting.
>
> --Mark
>
>
> Content Distribution Internetworking (CDI)
>
> Thursday November 21, 1300-1500
>
> Chair: Mark Day <markday <at> cisco.com>
>
> Agenda:
>
> Review of status of all group drafts (5 min)
>
> MODEL draft-ietf-cdi-model-02
> KNOWN-MECHANISMS draft-ietf-cdi-known-request-routing-01
> ARCHITECTURE draft-ietf-cdi-architecture-01
> RR-REQS draft-ietf-cdi-request-routing-reqs-01
> AAA-REQS draft-ietf-cdi-aaa-reqs-01
> SCENARIOS draft-ietf-cdi-scenarios-01
> THREATS draft-ietf-cdi-threat-00
> DIST-REQS [No draft currently available]
>
> Summary of goals, open issues in THREATS (20 min)
>
> Discussion (20 min)
>
> Summary of non-THREATS-related open issues in drafts (20 min).
>
> Discussion (40 min)
>
>
>
>
>

headers

Abbie Barbir | 11 Nov 2002 17:17

RE: Proposed agenda / should we meet?

Hi all,

I also propose that the CDI group meet.

Thanks

Abbie

-----Original Message-----
From: Knight, Paul [BL60:1A00:EXCH]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 11:02 AM
To: Mark Day; cdn <at> ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Proposed agenda / should we meet?

Hi Mark,

I will be there to present and discuss the threat model draft on behalf of Abbie Barbir, the draft editor. I certainly vote to hold the meeting as planned.

Regards,
Paul Knight

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Day [mailto:markday <at> cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 3:07 PM
> To: cdn <at> ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Proposed agenda / should we meet?
>
>
> Below is a proposed agenda for a meeting in Atlanta. However,
> I recently learned that neither the editor of the new threat
> model nor the editor of the architecture document will be
> present. So if we are meeting I need substitutes to (a)
> present the open issues for those documents and (b) own the
> task of capturing any changes or solutions that come out of
> the meeting.
>
> If we can't hit critical mass to make some sort of meaningful
> progress in Atlanta, I expect I will cancel the meeting.
>
> --Mark
>
>
> Content Distribution Internetworking (CDI)
>
> Thursday November 21, 1300-1500
>
> Chair: Mark Day <markday <at> cisco.com>
>
> Agenda:
>
> Review of status of all group drafts (5 min)
>
> MODEL draft-ietf-cdi-model-02
> KNOWN-MECHANISMS draft-ietf-cdi-known-request-routing-01
> ARCHITECTURE draft-ietf-cdi-architecture-01
> RR-REQS draft-ietf-cdi-request-routing-reqs-01
> AAA-REQS draft-ietf-cdi-aaa-reqs-01
> SCENARIOS draft-ietf-cdi-scenarios-01
> THREATS draft-ietf-cdi-threat-00
> DIST-REQS [No draft currently available]
>
> Summary of goals, open issues in THREATS (20 min)
>
> Discussion (20 min)
>
> Summary of non-THREATS-related open issues in drafts (20 min).
>
> Discussion (40 min)
>
>
>
>
>

headers

Mark Day | 12 Nov 2002 14:11

Our score so far on IETF-55 attendance

I have "not planning to attend" responses from Abbie Barbir, Lisa Amini,
Dave Frascone, and Michael Speer.  I have one volunteer in the person of
Paul Knight to present on behalf of Abbie Barbir. I don't have substitutes
to cover for the other three editors (distribution requirements, AAA
requirements, architecture). I haven't heard from Brad Cain (request-routing
requirements).

The other group drafts are waiting on the IESG, so I don't think I need an
editor to identify open issues on them.

If Paul presents issues in the threat model, will there be anyone besides me
attending?  I haven't seen much response in my mailbox or on the list
indicating an interest in the meeting.  If we're not going to get much value
out of a meeting, we should be focusing our efforts on what progress we can
accomplish by email and documents.

--Mark

headers

Mark Day | 13 Nov 2002 17:06

Cancelling Atlanta meeting

As you probably know, the purpose of an IETF WG meeting is to identify and
resolve issues that are not readily fixed in email/teleconferences, and to
take advantage of the presence of people from other WGs.  Practically
speaking, having a productive meeting requires the presence of at least a
substantial fraction of the people who are active and engaged in the WG, who
are typically authors/editors or active on the mailing list.

Since sending out the message below last Friday, the only messages I have
received from editors and authors are regrets that they are not able to come
to Atlanta.

While I am grateful that Paul Knight has volunteered to present open issues
on the threats document, we will still be missing at least 4 of the 6
authors for that draft. I have no volunteers/substitutes to present any of
the other group drafts -- I know definitively that none of the editors are
coming, with one exception where I haven't heard.

Accordingly, I am cancelling the CDI meeting planned for Atlanta.

I would be interested in opinions about whether we think CDI can finish its
remaining documents, and if so, how.

Thanks,

--Mark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-cdn <at> ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-cdn <at> ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> Mark Day
> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 3:07 PM
> To: cdn <at> ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Proposed agenda / should we meet?
>
>
> Below is a proposed agenda for a meeting in Atlanta. However, I recently
> learned that neither the editor of the new threat model nor the editor of
> the architecture document will be present. So if we are meeting I need
> substitutes to (a) present the open issues for those documents and (b) own
> the task of capturing any changes or solutions that come out of
> the meeting.
>
> If we can't hit critical mass to make some sort of meaningful progress in
> Atlanta, I expect I will cancel the meeting.
>
> --Mark
>
>
> Content Distribution Internetworking (CDI)
>
> Thursday November 21, 1300-1500
>
> Chair: Mark Day <markday <at> cisco.com>
>
> Agenda:
>
> Review of status of all group drafts (5 min)
>
> MODEL draft-ietf-cdi-model-02
> KNOWN-MECHANISMS draft-ietf-cdi-known-request-routing-01
> ARCHITECTURE draft-ietf-cdi-architecture-01
> RR-REQS draft-ietf-cdi-request-routing-reqs-01
> AAA-REQS draft-ietf-cdi-aaa-reqs-01
> SCENARIOS draft-ietf-cdi-scenarios-01
> THREATS draft-ietf-cdi-threat-00
> DIST-REQS [No draft currently available]
>
> Summary of goals, open issues in THREATS (20 min)
>
> Discussion (20 min)
>
> Summary of non-THREATS-related open issues in drafts (20 min).
>
> Discussion (40 min)
>
>
>
>

headers

Martin May | 15 Nov 2002 10:55

RE: Proposed agenda / should we meet?

Hi all,

sorry for the late confirmation, but I agree with Paul and think that we should meet in Atlanta.

Since the WG meeting is canceled, we should at least plan to meet among those

present in Atlanta anyway.

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-cdn <at> ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-cdn <at> ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of Paul Knight
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 05:02 PM
To: Mark Day; cdn <at> ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Proposed agenda / should we meet?

Hi Mark,

I will be there to present and discuss the threat model draft on behalf of Abbie Barbir, the draft editor. I certainly vote to hold the meeting as planned.

Regards,
Paul Knight

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Day [mailto:markday <at> cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 3:07 PM
> To: cdn <at> ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Proposed agenda / should we meet?
>
>
> Below is a proposed agenda for a meeting in Atlanta. However,
> I recently learned that neither the editor of the new threat
> model nor the editor of the architecture document will be
> present. So if we are meeting I need substitutes to (a)
> present the open issues for those documents and (b) own the
> task of capturing any changes or solutions that come out of
> the meeting.
>
> If we can't hit critical mass to make some sort of meaningful
> progress in Atlanta, I expect I will cancel the meeting.
>
> --Mark
>
>
> Content Distribution Internetworking (CDI)
>
> Thursday November 21, 1300-1500
>
> Chair: Mark Day <markday <at> cisco.com>
>
> Agenda:
>
> Review of status of all group drafts (5 min)
>
> MODEL draft-ietf-cdi-model-02
> KNOWN-MECHANISMS draft-ietf-cdi-known-request-routing-01
> ARCHITECTURE draft-ietf-cdi-architecture-01
> RR-REQS draft-ietf-cdi-request-routing-reqs-01
> AAA-REQS draft-ietf-cdi-aaa-reqs-01
> SCENARIOS draft-ietf-cdi-scenarios-01
> THREATS draft-ietf-cdi-threat-00
> DIST-REQS [No draft currently available]
>
> Summary of goals, open issues in THREATS (20 min)
>
> Discussion (20 min)
>
> Summary of non-THREATS-related open issues in drafts (20 min).
>
> Discussion (40 min)
>
>
>
>
>

headers

Jayasurya Venugopalan | 16 Nov 2002 03:53

Re: Proposed agenda / should we meet?

Hi,

Sorry to seem impertinent.

Cannot audio conferencing facility be made so that those who cannot make it physically can participate at least to some extent.

With rgds

jayasurya

Wipro Technologies

----- Original Message -----

From: Martin May

To: Paul Knight ; Mark Day ; cdn <at> ops.ietf.org

Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 2:55 PM

Subject: RE: Proposed agenda / should we meet?

Hi all,

sorry for the late confirmation, but I agree with Paul and think that we should meet in Atlanta.

Since the WG meeting is canceled, we should at least plan to meet among those

present in Atlanta anyway.

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-cdn <at> ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-cdn <at> ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of Paul Knight
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 05:02 PM
To: Mark Day; cdn <at> ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Proposed agenda / should we meet?

Hi Mark,

I will be there to present and discuss the threat model draft on behalf of Abbie Barbir, the draft editor. I certainly vote to hold the meeting as planned.

Regards,
Paul Knight

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Day [mailto:markday <at> cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 3:07 PM
> To: cdn <at> ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Proposed agenda / should we meet?
>
>
> Below is a proposed agenda for a meeting in Atlanta. However,
> I recently learned that neither the editor of the new threat
> model nor the editor of the architecture document will be
> present. So if we are meeting I need substitutes to (a)
> present the open issues for those documents and (b) own the
> task of capturing any changes or solutions that come out of
> the meeting.
>
> If we can't hit critical mass to make some sort of meaningful
> progress in Atlanta, I expect I will cancel the meeting.
>
> --Mark
>
>
> Content Distribution Internetworking (CDI)
>
> Thursday November 21, 1300-1500
>
> Chair: Mark Day <markday <at> cisco.com>
>
> Agenda:
>
> Review of status of all group drafts (5 min)
>
> MODEL draft-ietf-cdi-model-02
> KNOWN-MECHANISMS draft-ietf-cdi-known-request-routing-01
> ARCHITECTURE draft-ietf-cdi-architecture-01
> RR-REQS draft-ietf-cdi-request-routing-reqs-01
> AAA-REQS draft-ietf-cdi-aaa-reqs-01
> SCENARIOS draft-ietf-cdi-scenarios-01
> THREATS draft-ietf-cdi-threat-00
> DIST-REQS [No draft currently available]
>
> Summary of goals, open issues in THREATS (20 min)
>
> Discussion (20 min)
>
> Summary of non-THREATS-related open issues in drafts (20 min).
>
> Discussion (40 min)
>
>
>
>
>

3	July 2003
1	June 2003
3	May 2003
9	April 2003
7	March 2003
4	February 2003
7	January 2003
8	November 2002
6	October 2002
2	September 2002
15	August 2002
13	July 2002
14	June 2002
5	May 2002
23	April 2002

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun

				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30