At 01:42 PM 1/16/2002, John Klensin wrote:
* Should we continue with the two-plenary model? Should we do
so at every IETF, or consider some sort of periodic or
occasional schedule?
The two plenary model is good since it gives us time needed to address the
issues.
If people want to participate, they need to adjust their schedules to do so.
Many of us were a bit surprised by the SLC schedule, but that should not be
the case in the future.
* Do you have major architectural themes that should be
addressed during the next IAB plenary if one is held?
Well we have major issues on the Internet these days with the rise of
multimedia real-time apps and the even present concerns about NAT and IPv6.
It should be clear that the way we viewed NAT and IPv6 a few years ago has
changed dramatically. It sure couldn't hurt to revisit some of our
positions.
* And should the IAB try to control microphone time, or is it
better to let people explain their views at whatever length that
takes?
Yes please control the mike! The same goes for the IESG. The usefulness of
the plenary dissipates when people needlessly flog a dead horse on 10 minute
rants. People at the mike should bring up their point or argument, then move
on. We can always bring up our gripes in more detail on the IETF email list.