Chris –
As regards a meeting specifically targeted for the flooding speed topic, here
is my personal request/requirement:
The meeting MUST allow at least 50 % of the allocated meeting time for open
discussion.
If all we do at the interim meeting is fill the time with presentations, we
will not have accomplished much.
However you (as WG chair) go about building an agenda, please ensure that this
happens.
Thanx.
Les
From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2021 9:53 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; bruno.decra...@orange.com; lsr-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] draft-decraene-lsr-isis-flooding-speed & IETF 111
On Jul 9, 2021, at 11:00 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
<ginsb...@cisco.com<mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> wrote:
I agree with Bruno that the time available in the WG meeting will likely be
inadequate to present full updates for both drafts. In addition, I think it is
important that the WG have
an opportunity to discuss publicly in an interactive way, the merits of each
proposal. The likelihood that time will be available in the scheduled WG
meeting for that discussion as well seems low.
How about we use the time in the IETF WG meeting to give a high level summary
of what would be presented in more depth at the interim, and then we can have
discussion to decide what else might should go in the interim. Perhaps others
will feel inspired to also present during the interim after hearing the high
level summary! :) It shouldn’t be hard to schedule a follow on interim shortly
after IETF wraps even if we wait.
Thanks,
Chris (co-chair hat)
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
