Here is an info. for the call tomorrow. My applogies that I ran out of time during the last call. To have meeting time concise and more effective, I added time allocation for Agenda. See you there! -Keisuke ### Logistics for the call Date & Time: Apr 20 Tue 20:00 EDT/Apr 21 Wed 9:00 JST Dial-in Number: 1-831-600-1000 (Santa Cruz, California) Participant Access Code: 7771111 ### Proposed Agenda 1. Agenda bushing and roll call. (5min) 2. Date for F2F (15min) May 18 would be the fastest candidate for the meeting, considering the GGF guideline that call for four week advance announcement. It can be pushed a week or so, depending on the participants schedule. I believe that it is essential to get general agreement on how to create the Working Group draft of acs spec. Goal: Decide tentative dates and place for F2F. 3. Research updates on CDDLM, security, etc.(15min) Please report your findings on these, if any. Goal: Find the refinement to the current requirements description. 4. Issues list (30min) As Sachiko pointed out, it is worth think about what are the issues to create WG draft right now. Attached is my last post describing issues in my mind. Please raise your comments and/or bring up yours. Goal: Create an issues list with actions. Sachiko Wada wrote:
Hi team,
Here is the proposed teleconference schedule from Keisuke.
Next call: Apr 20 Wed 20:00 EST/Apr 21 Thu 9:00 JST
If anyone has problems with this, please feel free to respond to this message.
# Keisuke, let us know the calling info.
By the way, I assume that we have agreed to cooperate to develop ACS specification but I don't think that we have agreed the process. I wonder how I can contribute to our work.
We are going to write up a first working draft by GGF14, late June. It is about time to take some concrete actions. Deciding who writes which part of the document is one way, but there may be some issues left that need to be discussed before starting to write. If there are such issues I want to summarize them first. (Keisuke listed up such issues previously and we have already been discussing about Naregi requirements, but do they enough?)
So, I'd like to hear your opinion about this at the next telconf. ... Does this make sense?
Regards,
Sachiko Wada