June 21st meeting

[Greg Vaudreuil <gvaudre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Several weeks ago I sent a tentative agenda for the meeting to be held
in Copenhagen in conjunction with the INET 91 conference.  A revised
agenda is included below.

If you plan to attend this meeting, please notify me of your attendance
by sending a note to gvaudre@nri.reston.va.us.  I need to confirm
logistics arrangements, and plan refreshments.

Agenda
------

1) Character Set issues

   1) Pick one or more than one?
	There is a compelling reason to designate a "common" or
	"preferred" character set for Internet use.  Unfortunatly no clear
	candidate has emerged.  How to maximize interoperation is the focus of
	this discussion.

   2) If multiple character sets, define a mechanism for profiling
      particular sets for particular communities.
	The IETF traditionally has written protocols which do not
	require information external to the specification to
	interoperate.  If an external mechanism is needed, it needs to
	be well defined.

   3) UNICODE/ISO 10646 compromise.
	Representatives from the UNICODE consortium and ISO met to
	achieve a single unified character set.  This meeting was
	successful, and work is beginning to combining the characters
	sets.  While this work is not yet official, by the time of
	this meeting it should be.  The working group has been asked
	to review the proposal and send comments to ISO SC-2.

2) Enclave Issues

   1) Transport conversion,  Character set/ information conversion.
	Two types of Email conversion have been discussed in one or
	more of the discussion lists, including transport encodings
	between mixed transport environments, and character sets
	between groups of users who have chosen different "local"
	character sets.  The need for such conversions, and the relm
	for which they should be used needs to be discussed, and if
	necessary, an effort to engineer solutions needs to begin.

   2) How should enclaves be defined?  How can borders be enforced?
	If enclaves of users are to be formalized, where an enclave
	may share a "profile", the boundaries and identification
	mechanism needs to be defined, whether this includes static
	configuration, negotiation, or DNS lookup.

If there are additional topics that need discussing, please let me
know and I will revise this agenda.  These two agenda topics were
chosen in part to solicit the input of participants who have a strong
ideas about possible solutions to these problems, and may be unable to
travel to an IETF Plenary meeting.

For people who will be unable to attend this meeting, please send
proposals or positions to the list before the meeting.  Any ideas
circulated will be discussed at the meeting.  Minutes will be prepared
from this meeting and distributed to the IETF-SMTP mailing list.

Greg Vaudreuil