Re: Policy requirements in Son-Of-IKE

["Scott G. Kelly" <skelly@SonicWALL.com>]

I meant to send a response to this as well, as I forgot to complain
after the SLC meeting. To travel all that way to meet face to face, and
then to not have time to actually discuss things in detail, seems to
defeat the purpose. Interim meeting or no, I cast a vote for scheduling
more discussion (open mike?) time at working group meetings. If we need
3 slots, then we need 3 slots.

Scott

Jan Vilhuber wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > PS: I'm a bit upset that any time was spent on presentations on Thursday
> > >  morning. We should have spent the high bandwidth time in the small room
> > >  on discussion about these things.
> > >
> > >  I guess I should have read the agenda with more thought and objected to it.
> > >  I wonder if an official interim meeting in late April would have value.
> > >
> 
> I missed this in the first reading of this mail.
> 
> As you know, I fully agree. I don't know the politics around interim
> meetings, but given that we made absolutely NO forward progress in the
> last two meetings, I would consider some interim meeting valuable IF
> we can have a goal to the meeting (which is not just 'give five
> presentations and go home).
> 
> jan
>  --
> Jan Vilhuber                                            vilhuber@cisco.com
> Cisco Systems, San Jose                                     (408) 527-0847