Fwd: problem minutes

[James Seng]

This may comes a bit early but congralutions for the job well done!

-James Seng

Melinda Shore wrote:

> Here's a draft of the minutes from last week's meetings.  Please
> post corrections, etc. to the mailing list.
> 
> Many thanks to Scott Bradner for taking the notes.
> 
> Melinda
> 
> 
>> The Problem WG met from 1pm to 3pm on Wednesday November 12th 2003.
>>
>> The issues document:
>> The changes to the issues document between version 4 and version 5 were
>> reviewed.  The proposed fixes to the document based on the issues raised
>> during the WG last call were reviewed. No one had any objection to the
>> proposed fixes.
>>
>> The list of open issues were raised and discussed.  No one felt that the
>> document needed to be changed because of these issues.
>>
>> The chair asked if there were any objections to taking version 5 to a
>> second (one week) WG last call, after which it would be forwarded to the
>> General AD for consideration for publication as an Informational RFC.  
>> The
>> General AD asked if the working group felt that there should be an IETF
>> Last-Call for this document.  The sense of the room was that it should.
>>
>> The process document:
>> The chair asked if the working group felt that it would be OK if the
>> process document could list alternative paths forward with a note to say
>> that the working group was not able to reach consensus on any particular
>> path.  No one had any problem with closing the document in this way.  
>> Joel
>> Halprin asked if the document should be published as an RFC at all.  
>> After
>> discussion the sense of the room was that the process document should be
>> published as an informational RFC.
>>
>> The future of the working group
>> The chairs asked if the working group should be closed since its work was
>> done when the two documents were sent to the General AD.  The sense of 
>> the
>> room was that it should be closed.
>>
> 
> 
>