Aaron,
OK, that's a perfectly good explanation.
Given it's virtually Friday, suggesting
official agenda items is probably a bad
idea.
I'd imagine that by about 10am Tuesday
there will be a better feel as to
whether there is need (or interest) to
hold things together for a second hour
or let smaller groups splinter off
(as they will anyway).
Most interested parties are lurkers
(which is a bummer), so I'd say it's
an impossible call to make right now.
Might I suggest a micro-agenda item
at the very end of the 0900 session
to decide this - say 2 minutes? :o)
Regards,
Eric
> Eric Travis wrote:
>
> > Will we not be meeting for the second session, or are
> > you just undecided at this point?
>
> Eric-
>
> My intention was to spend the meeting reviewing progress on
> the I-D's. Summarizing these changes would not take much
> time and, after consulting with Mark, I realized that it was
>
> not necessary to use more than an hour. There's too much
> good stuff going on in the IETF to waste people's time
> unnecessarily.
>
> However, several topics have been raised on the list in the
> last few days regarding scope and topics that this working
> group should be addressing. There could be value in adding
> these items to the agenda. I am open to submissions (public
> or private) for additional presenters and/or agenda items.
>
> --aaron
>
>
> --
> Aaron Falk (310) 814-4932
> TRW, Inc Space & Electronics Group
> One Space Park Redondo Beach, CA 90278
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 14 2000 - 16:14:37 EST