For the WS-Security WG we started off with 80 people on the calls.
Now almost all the work was done by 10-15 people, but that is par
for the course.
The key thing is to have a clear statement of what issues have
been raised, which are closed and which the group is working on.
-----Original Message-----
From: Atul(_dot_)Sharma(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com
[mailto:Atul(_dot_)Sharma(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 9:50 AM
To: pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com; william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net
Cc: ietf-mailsig(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Ways to proceed
I think IETF WGs sometimes covene workshops in between IETF meetings.
That may not be the issue. The issue is what is practical.
With the use of internet there is no upper limit on the
number of people
who can participate. As opposed to that there is going to be
a limit on
the lines reserved on the confernce bridge. That would mean
only a subset
of possible folks can participate.
If some one can assure that everybody who wants to join can
join the audio
conferences, I will vote for those. Without that assurance I
would rather
fall back on internet communication.
Atul
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mailsig(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mailsig(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of ext
Hallam-Baker,
Phillip
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 9:26 AM
To: 'william(at)elan.net'; Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: ietf-mailsig(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Ways to proceed
Different setting, please don't make direct comparison and
also please
remember THIS IS IETF WG group and NOT OASIS WG group so we
must work
by IETF rules (no matter if you like those or not).
Not if the companies decide not to show up it isn't. Get the idea
out of your head that it is the IETF or nothing.
The IETF has proposed four email encryption and signature schemes.
None of them is a conspicious success.
As I pointed out in my first email, nothing in IETF rules prevents
the use of con calls. Come to that there is nothing to stop
bi-weekly face to face meetings.